MCT users, check in -

[Kuovonne]

Never mind.

 

I actually went through the exact same thought processes when she was persuading me to actually listen to what she was saying. I did not accept her instruction easily.

 

I made a lengthy post illustating my confusion. Then I went to wash dishes. In the course of washing dishes, I totally changed my mind. I now agree with y'all that there is such a thing as a grammatically acceptable English sentence with an indirect object but no direct object. So, I replaced that post with this one.

 

The verb that did it for me was "show." The sentence is one I often use with my kids.

"Show me the boo-boo. Show me." In the second sentence, "me" has to be an indirect object.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Kuovonne

[8filltheheart]

Never mind.

 

 

 

I made a lengthy post illustating my confusion. Then I went to wash dishes. In the course of washing dishes, I totally changed my mind. I now agree with y'all that there is such a thing as a grammatically acceptable English sentence with an indirect object but no direct object. So, I replaced that post with this one.

 

The verb that did it for me was "show." The sentence is one I often use with my kids.

"Show me the boo-boo. Show me." In the second sentence, "me" has to be an indirect object.

 

Exactly. :D

 

Now you have officially joined the ranks of grammar geeks that spend way too much time thinking about things that probably will never matter to anyone!! :lol:

[SBP]

Which level and components are you using?

Voyage level, everything but the poetry, which we started and just dropped. We might get back to it later.

 

How's it going?

Love it! My favorite thing about Shurley English the years we used it was the parsing of whole sentences at the beginning of the lesson. Practice Voyage is similar, and I think my dc are learning SO much from it. They're struggling a bit with verbals, which we'd never covered before, and to a lesser extent with clauses, which we had covered but apparently not in enough depth to master the concept. If we get to mid-year and I'm still seeing confusion, I might supplement those areas a bit with a few focused lessons from some other resource.

 

The other areas of the program are going wonderfully well, with the exception of poetry, which we've just dropped. I can see myself using the poetry book as a resource throughout the year, but it just wasn't working as a stand-alone. I think we need poetry in smaller doses, maybe?

 

Caesar's English 2 and Essay Voyage we're using exactly as written, and we're loving them.

 

Are you supplementing, with what?

When we dropped the poetry, I elected to add in CLE Reading, so they'll do a CLE lesson on the days we were doing poetry. It covers some poetry, but mostly I bought it to supplement Lightning Lit. I'm finding the pace of Lightning Lit to be a bit odd, frankly, and while I like the focus on whole books, I'm afraid it's going to be a little erratic for my children. Anyway, that's probably a whole 'nother post.

 

If I decide, as I mentioned above, to supplement a couple of grammar topics, I'll probably just use Our Mother Tongue, primarily because I already have it on my shelf, or possibly borrow a Rod & Staff textbook from my sister. I doubt I'll feel the need to buy anything else.

 

Is this your first experience with MCT?

It's my first experience with a whole level. Second semester last year I bought Caesar's English I and Paragraph Town - mostly, I confess, just to see what all the fuss was about, but also because we weren't doing a formal vocabulary program and were growing increasingly frustrated with IEW. I was hugely impressed with both books and have not regretted switching over to MCT materials.

 

 

 

Sorry for the thread resurrection; I was out of town last week but wanted to chime in :).

 

SBP

[DesertRambler]

I would dare to suggest that it's not true that there are eight parts of speech.

 

 

I have never heard that! At most, I would say *maybe* 9, if you separate articles out of the adjective category, but otherwise, those are the parts of speech. It sounds like the other terms you are using - determiners, nouns as modifiers, etc. - are not parts of speech, but rather describe HOW that particular word is being used in the sentence.

 

But if you look up words in a dictionary to see what parts of speech they can be, you won't find "determiner" as a part of speech. Though I can see how in your example, "eagle" would be confusing as it is usually a noun, and sometimes a verb (as in your golf example). I don't know if you would ever see it listed as an adjective in the dictionary, but it also wouldn't be listed as a "modifier" or such. So maybe it needs to be labeled as a noun in the sentence you used, but understanding that it's FUNCTION is to modify another noun. Or call the phrase "eagle chick" a compound noun or some such thing.

[rafiki]

.

[Saille]

I dunno. I keep hearing how kids get almost no grammar in school nowadays and can barely tell a verb from a noun. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons the MCT grammar seems out of step with the writing for most homeschoolers - we teach grammar, and this program was made for schools where it's been ignored, so even the gifted kids need it simpler. :confused: Anyhow, I'd just be surprised if the SAT had added a ninth part of speech, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. (I was thinking on something like the SAT, it would be multiple choice, and determiner wouldn't be on the list...)

 

The grammar section on the SAT requires students to identify sentence errors (by marking the incorrect portion of the sentence), improve sentences (by choosing the better/best answer from among five options), and improve paragraphs (by doing the above, and by moving, combining or omitting sentences). There are categories of common sentence errors being tested, including subject/verb agreement, verb tense, misplaced modifiers, use of pronouns, idiomatic errors, and diction errors. But no, nobody is going to be twitting your kid for failing to appreciate the difference between an adjective that modifies a noun and a noun that modifies a noun. I'd laugh, if it didn't make me sort of depressed.

[Aubrey]

Just wanted to say--my kids usually sit in the backseat of the van & play imagination. Today, they were playing subject/preposition--taking turns only saying subjects while the other only said predicates.

 

Dd esp loved finishing ds's subjects w/ things like "love unicorns" & "wish I were a pink fairy." :lol:

[Capt_Uhura]

MCT has a way of getting kids to play with language. LOVE it!

[Granny_Weatherwax]

MCT has a way of getting kids to play with language. LOVE it!

:iagree: and not just young kids, either.;)

[Violet Crown]

I have never heard that! At most, I would say *maybe* 9, if you separate articles out of the adjective category, but otherwise, those are the parts of speech. It sounds like the other terms you are using - determiners, nouns as modifiers, etc. - are not parts of speech, but rather describe HOW that particular word is being used in the sentence.

 

But if you look up words in a dictionary to see what parts of speech they can be, you won't find "determiner" as a part of speech. Though I can see how in your example, "eagle" would be confusing as it is usually a noun, and sometimes a verb (as in your golf example). I don't know if you would ever see it listed as an adjective in the dictionary, but it also wouldn't be listed as a "modifier" or such. So maybe it needs to be labeled as a noun in the sentence you used, but understanding that it's FUNCTION is to modify another noun. Or call the phrase "eagle chick" a compound noun or some such thing.

Well, since the thread has been resurrected....

 

I want to re-ask a question that went hanging earlier. Whatever one thinks about what ought to be called an adjective ... what is the use of calling "the," "a," "some," "six," "eagle" (in "eagle chick"), etc., adjectives?

 

I get that what MCT seems to be heading for is to "describe how that particular word is being used in the sentence." Maybe all we want from the name "adjective" is a synonym for "word that modifies a noun." That's useful if our ultimate goal is to be able to write labels under words in a sentence, or after an entry in a dictionary.

 

But what I want from grammatical words is the ability to form grammatical rules. I'm only interested in a special name for "word that modifies a noun" if having that special name lets me say things about words.

 

An example: Having the word "verb" lets me say things about these words I'm calling "verbs"; for instance, "A verb has a tense ending." Then I look around at the words I'm calling "verbs," and I can see that, yes, they have tense endings: speaks, had, hidden. And I look around at the words I'm not calling "verbs," and I can see that they don't have tense endings: not, creative, him. If someone presented me with a list of words that didn't follow that rule, I would figure that either (a) my rule was incorrect; or (b) what they were calling "verbs" aren't really verbs. If I had several useful rules for verbs, and someone presented me with a list of words that violated many of those rules, I would start to think that (b) was true. If this hypothetical someone insisted that, nevertheless, in his opinion these words ought to be called verbs, I could only say that his word "verb" was not a useful word.

 

So having names for these parts of speech lets me start organizing grammar into a set of rules. That's the reason I'm interested in having "adjective" mean something which is amenable to rules.

 

Now, here's one rule I can formulate using "adjective" in the traditional/MCT sense: An adjective can come immediately before the noun it modifies. That's a nice rule; and it works for any of the words MCT defines as "adjectives":

 

eagle chick, the cat, six penguins, a gargoyle.

 

But here's my question for folks who want to call all those words adjectives: what other grammatical rule can you formulate for "adjectives"? Not, please, for "some adjectives" or "most adjectives."

 

If we can't form rules for "adjectives," then I would maintain that what really is an adjective isn't determined by preference or difference of opinion, but by grammatical usefulness.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Sharon in Austin

[Violet Crown]

Well, let me take myself up on my own dare.:D

 

Here's some grammatical rules that apply to the things that I call "adjectives":

 

1. An adjective can go in front of a noun.

 

Fabulous gargoyle.

 

2. Two adjectives can go in front of a noun.

 

Fabulous, tiny gargoyle.

 

3. Adjectives can go in front of a noun in any order.

 

Tiny, fabulous gargoyle.

 

4. An adjective can have comparative and superlative forms, either by adding an ending (-er, -est) or by preceding it with a qualifier (more, most).

 

The tiniest, most fabulous gargoyle.

 

5. An adjective can take an intensifier such as "very."

 

The very tiny, quite fabulous gargoyle.

 

6. An adjective can be joined to a noun with forms of to be.

 

The gargoyle was fabulous.

 

----------------------

 

And so on.

 

You cannot frame any of these rules, except the first, for the traditional/MCT definition of "adjective." And I suspect that the first rule is question-begging, as it seems to be the basis for the traditional definition in the first place.

 

And on some level, MCT knows this. One one page of Grammar Island, the student is invited to form a sentence by choosing from a list of adjectives, then another list of adjectives, then a noun, then a verb, then an adverb. But the first list is composed of determiners, and the second list of actual adjectives and no determiners. Because adjectives follow Rule #3 above; but since determiners aren't in fact adjectives, they have to be carefully limited to column one.

[Momling]

Well, since the thread has been resurrected....

 

So having names for these parts of speech lets me start organizing grammar into a set of rules. That's the reason I'm interested in having "adjective" mean something which is amenable to rules.

 

Now, here's one rule I can formulate using "adjective" in the traditional/MCT sense: An adjective can come immediately before the noun it modifies. That's a nice rule; and it works for any of the words MCT defines as "adjectives":

 

eagle chick, the cat, six penguins, a gargoyle.

 

But here's my question for folks who want to call all those words adjectives: what other grammatical rule can you formulate for "adjectives"? Not, please, for "some adjectives" or "most adjectives."

 

 

 

Actually I don't think any of your example adjectives (Eagle, the, six, a) are adjectives at all. If you want a rule... I'd say that in English, an adjective is a word that can go before a noun AND also can go in the predicative position (following the verb 'to be').

 

Here's the adjective "Friendly" -- it meets both of those requirements:

 

Friendly dogs are animals. - OK ('Friendly' is preceding a noun)

Dogs are friendly. - OK ('Friendly' is in the predicate position)

 

Here is a determiner, "the" -- it doesn't meet both of those requirements:

 

The dogs are friendly - OK ('The' is preceding a noun)

* Dogs are the. - Not OK ('The' can not follow the copula.)

 

Same thing with some other determiners:

 

Six dogs are friendly.

*Dogs are six.

 

A dog is friendly.

*Dogs are a.

 

Some dogs are friendly.

*Dogs are some.

 

My dogs are friendly.

*Dogs are my.

 

You can test it with another part of speech like a noun (like 'animals') in the predicate position if you want:

 

Dogs are animals. ('animals' is following the copula)

*Animals dogs are friendly. ('animals' can't precede the noun).

 

I'm pretty sure that 'eagle chick' is actually a compound noun, not an adjective modifying a noun.

 

Eagle chicks are wonderful.

*The chicks are eagle.

The chicks are eagles. (OK -- as a noun)

 

Yellow chicks are wonderful. (OK)

The chicks are yellow. (OK -- yellow works as an adjective)

 

 

Anyway, though I love Grammar Island, I just told my daughter that MCT was wrong when he called determiners 'adjectives'.

[Violet Crown]

Actually I don't think any of your example adjectives (Eagle, the, six, a) are adjectives at all.

Right... that was my point. Others were arguing that those words are adjectives. MCT claims they are adjectives. I am saying that they are not.

 

The reason I gave the rules is that, as you demonstrated, the words claimed to be "adjectives" don't work for any of them. My broader claim is that there are no useful grammatical rules to which the traditional/MCT/prescriptive grammar definition of "adjectives" conform; and therefore excluding such words from the definition of "adjective" isn't a matter of personal preference, but of empirical observation of how English works.

 

(See adjective discussion starting here.)

Edited October 24, 2010 by Sharon in Austin

[Momling]

Right... that was my point. Others were arguing that those words are adjectives. MCT claims they are adjectives. I am saying that they are not.

 

The reason I gave the rules is that, as you demonstrated, the words claimed to be "adjectives" don't work for any of them. My broader claim is that there are no useful grammatical rules to which the traditional/MCT/prescriptive grammar definition of "adjectives" conform; and therefore excluding such words from the definition of "adjective" isn't a matter of personal preference, but of empirical observation of how English works.

 

(See adjective discussion starting here.)

 

I see! :tongue_smilie: I guess I'll have to hop into your articles-aren't-adjectives boat and sail with you... away from Grammar Island... and into the sunset.

[8filltheheart]

Right... that was my point. Others were arguing that those words are adjectives. MCT claims they are adjectives. I am saying that they are not.

 

The reason I gave the rules is that, as you demonstrated, the words claimed to be "adjectives" don't work for any of them. My broader claim is that there are no useful grammatical rules to which the traditional/MCT/prescriptive grammar definition of "adjectives" conform; and therefore excluding such words from the definition of "adjective" isn't a matter of personal preference, but of empirical observation of how English works.

 

(See adjective discussion starting here.)

 

I absolutely agree with you that if his definition of an adj is a word that comes before the noun and modifies it that that is not the definition of an adj that I would ever use.

 

However, I see grammar as tool for understanding what is going on, how words work together, and how structure of the sentences matters.

 

My working definition of an adj is simply modifies/limits the noun. Location is arbitrary (well, not exactly b/c I am not referring to permitting misplaced modifiers. However, allowable locations vary)

 

I have no problem calling articles adjs. Nor do a I have a problem calling pred nom adjectives, nor prep phrases, nor participles, nor infinitives, nor adj phrases. I call all of them adjs if their function in the sentence is to either limit/modify a noun.

 

Am I misunderstanding what you are stating in regards to the function of the words? Do you believe that they are not modifying the noun? B/c I don't see that their function is altered. I am trying to understand what you are saying, but I am stuck on that pt.

 

(See.....I think the fact that they are still modifiers is all that is important. It is different in my mind than suggesting that action is transmitted to an object when it really isn't.)

 

ETA: I also think that there is a difference between subjective complements(or predicate nominatives.....whatever name you want to use; they are the same thing) that are nouns and are meant to rename the noun vs. nouns that are used as adjectives (which is what your examples are doing)

Dogs are animals )(noun renaming dog).

Dogs are friendly. (adj describing dog)

That unusual (adj) bush is a rose. (noun renaming bush)

That rose (noun as a noun modifier which I have no problem identifying as an adj b/c it is modifying the bush) bush is unusual (adj describing bush).).

It boils down to what they are actually doing in a specific sentence. This website is one that you might actually like b/c it discusses nouns as noun modifiers and possessive nouns as noun modifiers (which I am still fine defining as an adj) http://www.suite101.com/content/english-nouns-and-noun-phrases-a103855

 

One pt I disagree with MCT is his insistence on learning vocabulary as a certain part of speech in isolation. Yes, words change form when used as various parts of speech, however just b/c you use the noun form of the word does not mean the word will actually be just a "noun" in the sentence. It may be part of a phrase/clause that is actually functioning as an adj, adv, etc. That is the distinction I want my children to understand.

Edited October 24, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Violet Crown]

My working definition of an adj is simply modifies/limits the noun. Location is arbitrary (well, not exactly b/c I am not referring to permitting misplaced modifiers. However, allowable locations vary)

 

Okay. I would respond, Of what use to me is that definition of "adjective"? I can't form any grammatical rules with it.

 

I can't even form your rule "location is arbitrary." Let me go into detail with this one, because it's a good example of the problem.

 

With my definition of an adjective, I can give a rule for location of adjectives. An adjectival phrase (that is, an adjective plus any modifiers of its own) precedes the noun (or noun-noun construction, if any) that it modifies, and follows any determiners; or it follows the noun, if linked to it by a linking verb.

 

The white sperm whale surfaced rapidly.

The sperm whale was white.

 

Location isn't arbitrary. I can't just put "white" anywhere:

 

*The sperm white whale surfaced rapidly.

*The sperm whale surfaced white rapidly.

*White the sperm whale surfaced rapidly.

 

With MCT's definition of "adjective," I can't form this rule, because it doesn't work for determiners. As an obvious instance, they can't go in the predicate:

 

*Sperm whale was the.

 

With your much wider definition, I can't even start to form a grammatical rule about location of adjectives. For instance, if a prepositional phrase is an adjective:

 

The vengeful captain stood on the deck.

*The on the deck captain stood.

 

As I showed above, location of an adjective isn't arbitrary; but just saying "they're misplaced" doesn't help, because I don't have a rule to tell me why they're misplaced. Is there such a rule for ajdectives (by your definition of them) that doesn't presuppose knowing what an adjective is?

 

 

I have no problem calling articles adjs. Nor do a I have a problem calling pred nom adjectives, nor prep phrases, nor participles, nor infinitives, nor adj phrases. I call all of them adjs if their function in the sentence is to either limit/modify a noun.)

Okay; you want to define "adjective" by its function. Fair enough. So here are two questions:

 

1. You see grammar as "a tool for understanding what is going on; how words work together; and how structure of the sentences matter." Can you explain to me how your definition of "adjective" helps you do this? A concrete example helps my little brain wonderfully.

 

Put another way: I don't see what I can say about sentence structure, or how words work together, with your definition. All I could say would be a restatement of your definition: an adjective modifies/limits the noun. Can you tell me something else I can say about adjectives?

 

2. Take these sentences:

 

A man walked down the street. He wore a purple hat.

 

By your definition, I would want to say that the entire second sentence is an adjective modifiying "a man" in the first sentence. The second sentence is modifying that noun. Or, I could start with

 

Call me Ishmael.

 

and all the rest of Moby Dick would be an adjective modifying "Ishmael." (If the objection is that these are separate sentences, I'll go ahead and stitch them together with semi-colons.)

 

How, then, do I avoid making "adjective" under your definition include these? It seems to me that "modifies or limits a noun" opens up far more territory to "adjective" than we want to give it.

 

Am I misunderstanding what you are stating in regards to the function of the words? Do you believe that they are not modifying the noun? B/c I don't see that their function is altered. I am trying to understand what you are saying, but I am stuck on that pt.

 

(See.....I think the fact that they are still modifiers is all that is important. It is different in my mind than suggesting that action is transmitted to an object when it really isn't.)

Part of the problem here is that I'm not trying to define an adjective solely in regard to the function of the words. As my (somewhat silly) examples in question #2 show, defining a part of speech solely by its function is problematic.

 

Sure, I'll say that an adjective is modifying a noun. But that's too wide a definition to either (a) let me say anything else about an adjective; or (b) limit the class of adjectives to exclude things I don't think we want to include.

 

(I know you don't have infinite time; I sure don't.:tongue_smilie: So you don't have to respond to everything, or even anything, I've said here. Question #1 strikes me as the more important one; though question #2 I think better addresses the problems with defining a parts of speech solely by what we see as its function, without regard to the structure of language.)

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

[Just saw your edit:

Is there any hope of formulating a distinction between "describing" and "renaming" that doesn't presuppose a distinction between "adjectives" and "nouns"? Because if not, it looks like knowing the meaning of "adjective" is necessary to understanding your definition of "adjective."]

[Violet Crown]

ETA: I also think that there is a difference between subjective complements(or predicate nominatives.....whatever name you want to use; they are the same thing) that are nouns and are meant to rename the noun vs. nouns that are used as adjectives (which is what your examples are doing)

Dogs are animals )(noun renaming dog).

Dogs are friendly. (adj describing dog)

That unusual (adj) bush is a rose. (noun renaming bush)

That rose (noun as a noun modifier which I have no problem identifying as an adj b/c it is modifying the bush) bush is unusual (adj describing bush).).

It boils down to what they are actually doing in a specific sentence.

To address this more thoroughly:

 

If I were trying to figure out what an adjective is by your definition, this would really throw me. In

 

Dogs are animals.

 

it sure looks like "animals" is modifying "dogs." Why isn't it? Saying "because it's a noun, not an adjective" doesn't help, because I'm trying to figure out what an adjective is in the first place. Saying "because it's renaming "dog," not describing it" makes everything fuzzy. If I had this sentence

 

Dogs are domesticated furry animals.

 

it would sure seem to me that the phrase "domesticated furry animals" is describing dogs, and so would be an adjective.

 

One massive advantage to defining parts of speech in terms of the structure of the language is that it avoids morasses such as distinguishing between "modify" and "describe."

 

And to be quite honest, I strongly suspect that nobody using the traditional system is looking at "The dog is furry" and "The dog is a carnivore" and saying "Ah, that thing at the end of the first sentence is describing dog, while the thing at the end of the second sentence is renaming it; so the former is an adjective and the latter a noun."

 

I suspect that instead, our brains, which understand the rules of grammar quite well, are saying something like "The furry dog; *the carnivore dog; ah, that second thing doesn't act like an adjective at all; better call it something else." And then distinctions such as "describes" vs. "renames" are post hoc.

 

I'd much rather look at grammar as our brains already understand it, than construct a post hoc series of rules and try to work backward from there.

[8filltheheart]

Yes, I have to get off the computer!:tongue_smilie:

 

As regards to location, I am referring to the fact that noun modifiers (adjs :lol:) do NOT have to come before the noun.

 

For example:

The cake, baked by a master chef and beautifully decorated, was the hit of the party. (essentially the entire sentence modifies cake ETA.....since this example actually uses a noun to rename it, it isn't as extreme as if I had originally typed: The cake, baked by a master chef and beautifully decorated, was delicious.)

 

What is the purpose of knowing that? B/c it allows for simple restructuring of sentences w/o changing meaning.

 

The beautifully decorated cake baked by the master chef was the hit of the party. or Baked by the master chef, the beautifully decorated cake was the hit of the party. Or The hit of the party was the cake, baked by a master chef and beautifully decorated.

 

It also helps to locate misplaced modifiers.

 

Being a man with a big heart, Jim likes helping people. vs.

Jim likes being a man with a big heart helping people. (here location matters b/c it changes the meaning of the sentence) ETA: but

Jim, being a man with a big heart, likes helping people. (doesn't change the meaning)

 

I am not sure how a generated list of rules like you are suggesting would actually help. :confused:

 

FWIW.....whether or not a noun is an IO or a DO really isn't useful either. It really doesn't change sentence structure. ;)

Edited October 24, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[8filltheheart]

To address this more thoroughly:

 

If I were trying to figure out what an adjective is by your definition, this would really throw me. In

 

Dogs are animals.

 

it sure looks like "animals" is modifying "dogs." Why isn't it? Saying "because it's a noun, not an adjective" doesn't help, because I'm trying to figure out what an adjective is in the first place. Saying "because it's renaming "dog," not describing it" makes everything fuzzy. If I had this sentence

 

Dogs are domesticated furry animals.

 

it would sure seem to me that the phrase "domesticated furry animals" is describing dogs, and so would be an adjective.

 

One massive advantage to defining parts of speech in terms of the structure of the language is that it avoids morasses such as distinguishing between "modify" and "describe."

 

And to be quite honest, I strongly suspect that nobody using the traditional system is looking at "The dog is furry" and "The dog is a carnivore" and saying "Ah, that thing at the end of the first sentence is describing dog, while the thing at the end of the second sentence is renaming it; so the former is an adjective and the latter a noun."

 

I suspect that instead, our brains, which understand the rules of grammar quite well, are saying something like "The furry dog; *the carnivore dog; ah, that second thing doesn't act like an adjective at all; better call it something else." And then distinctions such as "describes" vs. "renames" are post hoc.

 

I'd much rather look at grammar as our brains already understand it, than construct a post hoc series of rules and try to work backward from there.

 

Actually, the grammar books I used to use for elementary school did precisely that. They described the distinction between subjective complements that were acting as adjs and those renaming the nouns.

 

The flower is pretty. The pretty flower

 

The flower is a daisy. not The daisy flower

[Violet Crown]

Yes, I have to get off the computer!:tongue_smilie:

Yeah, my dh is giving me that "Is someone wrong on the internet again?" look.

 

As regards to location, I am referring to the fact that noun modifiers (adjs :lol:) do NOT have to come before the noun.

 

For example:

The cake, baked by a master chef and beautifully decorated, was the hit of the party. (essentially the entire sentence modifies cake ETA.....since this example actually uses a noun to rename it, it isn't as extreme as if I had originally typed: The cake, baked by a master chef and beautifully decorated, was delicious.)

 

What is the purpose of knowing that? B/c it allows for simple restructuring of sentences w/o changing meaning.

 

The beautifully decorated cake baked by the master chef was the hit of the party. or Baked by the master chef, the beautifully decorated cake was the hit of the party. Or The hit of the party was the cake, baked by a master chef and beautifully decorated.

 

 

But what are the rules here? Why can I rearrange your things that modify nouns (henceforth "ttmn") to make the above sentences, but not also rearrange them to make these sentences?

 

*The baked by the master chef beautifully decorated cake was the hit of the party.

*Baked by the master chef cake was the hit of the party the beautifully decorated.

*Baked by master chef cake was beautifully decorated hit of party the the the.

 

I assume you'd say some of those words/phrases are misplaced; but on what basis could I say they are? All the words that strike me as being in ungrammatical places are in places that you've put ttmn's.

 

But frankly, my temptation is to say that if, as you say, the entire sentence essentially (not sure what that word means grammatically) modifies the word cake, and therefore (by what I understand you to mean by "adjective" constitutes one big adjective, or a string of adjectives, or adjectival phrases containing adjectives and other things (and I'm not at all clear on this) ... if that's true, then we've arrived at what logicians call a reductio. An adjective is everything in the sentence that's not the simple subject.

 

I am not sure how a generated list of rules like you are suggesting would actually help. :confused:

Help with what, precisely?

 

Forming grammatical rules helps with understanding how our language works.

 

It helps answer questions like, "Why do native speakers of English, who would (if asked) probably say that 'two' is an adjective, never in fact say 'Those furry, two, lazy cats are at it again!'"

 

Or questions like, "Why do native speakers happily say 'Everyone likes their own ideas' even though 'their' doesn't appear to agree in number with 'everyone'?

 

By understanding the rules of how language actually works, we can make progress on answering such questions. To do that, we need words for parts of language that mean specific things. If the words start to mean anything and everything, the words are useless.

 

I am starting from the principle that native speakers of a language speak grammatically because language operates according to a set of rules, rules which the speaker intuits even if he can't state them for you. These rules are discovered by empirical examination. I really don't care much about rules that show you how to write nice compositions (though I think my rules will do that, too); I care about the actual rules that are already there. I want to know what they are. For the same reason that I want to know what the laws of physics are, or any other branch of intellectual endeavor.

[Violet Crown]

Actually, the grammar books I used to use for elementary school did precisely that. They described the distinction between subjective complements that were acting as adjs and those renaming the nouns.

 

The flower is pretty. The pretty flower

 

The flower is a daisy. not The daisy flower

Well, yes. So clearly "pretty" in sentence 1 is not the same kind of word as "daisy" in sentence 2. The former is an adjective; the latter a noun.

 

You see how we don't need to try to decide if something is being "described" or only "renamed"? We have a rule that makes such fuzzy distinctions unnecessary. We can call this rule "An adjective can follow the noun it modifies when connected by a linking verb." I like this rule because it seems to be the same rule our brains already use.

 

I admit I don't see why this isn't a solid point in favor of a structural definition of "adjective."

Edited October 24, 2010 by Sharon in Austin