TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: report on how kids can't write (nouns etc) From:Andrew Smith <soa -at- CIX -dot- COMPULINK -dot- CO -dot- UK> Date:Wed, 17 Aug 1994 07:42:18 GMT
> The problem with this definition is that it will not allow you to pick
out
> allthe nouns in English. Depending on how you define "thing", you may or
> may notinclude "behavior" in the sentence "I was appalled at his
> behavior".
No problem here: 'behavior' is definitely a noun. The definition needs to
be syntactic at least as much as semantic. If it will fit in a sentence
in a place where nouns go, it's a noun.
> If you do,it is difficult to see how you can exclude "behave"
> in the sentence "I wasappalled at how he behaved." "Behavior" is in any
> model a noun; "behaved" onthe other hand is a verb. A definition which
> fails to include words whichbelong to the catefory defined or which
> includes words which do not belong tothat category cannot be adequate.
You're cheating slightly here - the part of your 2nd example sentence
that is equivalent to 'behavior' is not 'behaved' but 'how he behaved'. I
could go on for ages about this, but I won't. Have a look at
'Introduction to the Grammar of English' by R Huddleston, published by
Cambridge University Press (in the UK, but they have a NY office),
especially the chapter on Parts of Speech and the problems with
definitions.
