[This message was originally submitted by Robert Einarsson, [log in to unmask] to the ATEG list ] To contribute to the discussion on whether it is necessary to make distinctions between nouns and things that may carry the function of nouns: In "Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages" Adam Smith distinguishes between "nouns substantive," "nouns objective," "nouns adjective," and probably others. "But though the invention of nouns adjective be much more natural than that of the abstract nouns substantive derived from them, it would still, however, require a considerable degree of abstraction and generalization." -Adam Smith. This type of reasoning might help explain the "horse barn" question. Personally, I would say that "horse" is an adjective if it is used as an adjective (just as "try" is a noun and "mountain" is an adjective). But "horse" when used as an adjective is a particular kind of sub-type: an adjective that derives from a substantive originally. If we want to explain these close differences between types of nouns (nouns substantive and nouns adjective), this would be a good way to go about it. However, the question of sub-types among nouns does not bear upon the question of defining grammatical elements by function. There are six functions that define every element of English grammar, whether that function takes place on a single word, a complete phrase, or a complete depencent clause. In addition, a gerund is a noun, a pronoun is a noun, even an infinitive verb is a noun (the name of an action not actually occurring). It does help in teaching grammar to brush aside the complicated sub-categories and extremely fine distinctions, before the students are even aware of the major elements. Sincerely, Robert Einarsson please visit my web site at www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb