Timeline for Is "programming" not a noun?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2023 at 16:48 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | Related. | |
| Mar 31, 2016 at 15:14 | comment | added | Alex B. | "a programming class": programming here is a (gerundial) noun; "a programming grandparent": programming here is a participial adjective. | |
| Mar 30, 2016 at 5:02 | vote | accept | herisson | ||
| Feb 18, 2016 at 10:51 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | E. prepositions (barring, concerning, pending, considering …). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 15:42 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | Then there are 'pseudo-gradable' ones (very full, very true ...) and gradable-in-peripheral-contexts ones (very unique ...). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 15:40 | comment | added | Greg Lee | @EdwinAshworth, that's very true. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 15:27 | comment | added | Greg Lee | @deadrat, I modified my answer to include adjectives of the sort that you mention. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 15:25 | history | edited | Greg Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 323 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 11:16 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | There are many other non-gradable adjectives, eg classifying adjectives (*a very woollen jumper [98%?]). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 7:37 | comment | added | deadrat | @GregLee I was being sloppy. I meant present participles not used in predicates. And I think we're almost in violent agreement. Modifier refers to the function; adjective refers to the lexical category. I think it's better to keep those distinct. YMMV. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 7:06 | comment | added | Greg Lee | @deadrat, I'm not splitting "gerunds" into types. (Did you mean "participles"?) I'm splitting noun modifiers into lexical, or "true", adjectives, and noun modifiers in -ing derived from verbs (which modifiers might or might not be called adjectives). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 6:19 | comment | added | deadrat | @GregLee We don't say "very retires," but that has more to do with the idiomatic use of retire. We do say "an intensely disturbing situation for me" and "a situation that disturbs me intensely". What does that mean? That *disturbing" isn't a "true" adjective? I think you're on the wrong track when you try to split gerunds into "true" adjectives and "false" adjectives. They're inflected verb forms that have different functions: as noun modifiers (like adjectives) or as the heads of phrases that act as subjects and complements (like nouns). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:59 | comment | added | Greg Lee | @deadrat, that example seems fine to me, too. What does it show? I think it shows that "retiring" in that phrase is a true adjective, not a participle. The example doesn't mean he is a sort who very retires. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:51 | comment | added | Greg Lee | If "flying manual" means manual about flying, with stronger stress on "flying", that makes it a noun-noun compound, so "flying" is a noun (my case A). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:28 | comment | added | deadrat | Unlike true adjectives, they cannot be modified by "very" "He is a very retiring sort" seems fine to me. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:27 | comment | added | herisson | Like here, for example: 1932 FLYING AND GLIDER MANUAL. A manual about flying. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:17 | comment | added | Greg Lee | I'm only marginally familiar with Huddleston and Pullum, and I don't much like it. I don't think it would be reasonable to call A anything but nouns, I said what B and C are in my answer. I don't understand your example "flying manual". I agree that "flying fish" could be from a reduced relative clause, so then the "flying" would be a participle (and perhaps an adjective, depending on how you use that term). | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:06 | comment | added | herisson | Thanks. It sounds like Huddleston and Pullum call A "gerundial nouns" and B and C "gerund-participles." Would you agree that there is a syntactic distinction between A used as a noun modifier and C used as a noun modifier (e.g. between constructions like "flying manual" and those like "flying fish")? It seems to me that the second can be interpreted as a reduced relative clause, but the first cannot. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:05 | history | edited | Greg Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 5:00 | history | edited | Greg Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 170 characters in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 4:48 | history | answered | Greg Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |