[This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the ATEG list ] > > This is to carry on the discussion of whether it's necessary to use > terminology that makes distinctions between nouns and things that may take > the function of nouns, etc. {Bill McCleary [log in to unmask] to the ATEG list } [Bill,] I am writing a paper now on the relationship of modern linguistics (Chomskyan) to traditional grammar. This discussion raises the real issues at stake. First, there is a difference between "form" and "function." In "the horse barn," it might make sense to say that "horse" has some kind of modifying function, but I think we miss an important generalization in saying it is an adjective. It takes none of the inflections that adjectives do. By the way, this confusion makes grammar look very ad hoc. In fact grammar has an internal consistency that such definitions do not reveal. Second, pronouns do not function as nouns, but noun phrases. In fact, it is at the phrase level that most principles of substition or "movement" take place. The Queen is unhappy. *The she is unhappy. The Queen of England is unhappy. *The she of England is unhappy. Finally, the problem with subordinate clauses is that there is no clear structural differences among adjective, noun and adverbial clauses in English. German, I believe, does have some structural differences. So appeal has to be made to the function of the clause. In point of fact, native speakers of the language possess this basic knowledge about English. We need to figure out how to make that knowledge conscious. Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University