Everything about Noun totally explained
In
linguistics, a
noun or
noun substantive is a
lexical category which is defined in terms of how its members combine with other kinds of expressions. Since different languages have different inventories of kinds of expressions, the definition of
noun will differ from language to language. In
English, nouns may be defined as those words which can co-occur with
definite articles and
attributive adjectives, and function as the
head of a
noun phrase. The noun can be replaced by a pronoun of first person, second person, or even third person. Also the noun is known for being one of the eight parts of speech.
History
The word comes from the
Latin nomen meaning "
name". Word classes like nouns were first described by the Sanskrit grammarian [[Panini(grammarian)|]] and ancient Greeks like
Dionysios Thrax; and were defined in terms of their
morphological properties. For example, in Ancient Greek, nouns inflect for
grammatical case, such as dative or accusative.
Verbs, on the other hand, inflect for
tenses, such as past, present or future, while nouns do not.
Aristotle also had a notion of
onomata (nouns) and
rhemata (verbs) which, however, doesn't exactly correspond with modern notions of nouns and verbs. Nouns are words that describe person, place, thing, animal or abstract idea.
Different definitions of nouns
Expressions of
natural language have properties at different levels. They have
formal properties, like what kinds of
morphological prefixes or
suffixes they take and what kinds of other expressions they combine with; but they also have
semantic properties, for example properties pertaining to their meaning. The definition of a noun at the outset of this page is thus a
formal, traditional grammatical definition. That definition, for the most part, is considered uncontroversial and furnishes the propensity for certain language users to effectively distinguish most nouns from non-nouns. However, it has the disadvantage that it doesn't apply to nouns in all languages. For example in
Russian, there are no definite articles, so one can't define nouns as words that are modified by definite articles. There are also several attempts of defining nouns in terms of their
semantic properties. Many of these are controversial, but some are discussed below.
Names for things
In
traditional school grammars, one often encounters the definition of nouns that they're all and only those expressions that refer to a
person,
place,
thing,
event,
substance,
quality, or
idea, etc. This is a
semantic definition. It has been criticized by contemporary linguists as being uninformative. Contemporary linguists generally agree that one can't successfully define nouns (or other grammatical categories) in terms of what sort of
object in the world they
refer to or
signify. Part of the
conundrum is that the definition makes use of relatively
general nouns ("thing", "phenomenon", "event") to define what nouns
are. The existence of such
general nouns demonstrates that nouns refer to entities that are organized in
taxonomic hierarchies. But other kinds of expressions are also organized into such structured taxonomic relationships. For example the verbs "stroll", "saunter", "stride", and "tread" are more specific words than the more
general "walk". Moreover, "walk" is more specific than the verb "move", which, in turn, is less general than "change". But it's unlikely that such taxonomic relationships can be used to
define nouns and verbs. We can't
define verbs as those words that refer to "changes" or "states", for example, because the nouns
change and
state probably refer to such things, but, of course, aren't verbs. Similarly, nouns like "invasion", "meeting", or "collapse" refer to things that are "done" or "happen". In fact, an influential
theory has it that verbs like "kill" or "die" refer to events, which is among the sort of thing that nouns are supposed to refer to. The point being made here isn't that this view of verbs is wrong, but rather that this property of verbs is a poor basis for a
definition of this category, just like the property of
having wheels is a poor basis for a definition of cars (some things that have wheels, such as my suitcase or a jumbo jet, aren't cars). Similarly, adjectives like "yellow" or "difficult" might be thought to refer to qualities, and adverbs like "outside" or "upstairs" seem to refer to places, which are also among the sorts of things nouns can refer to. But verbs, adjectives and adverbs are not nouns, and nouns aren't verbs, adjectives or adverbs. One might argue that "definitions" of this sort really rely on speakers' prior intuitive knowledge of what nouns, verbs and adjectives are, and, so don't really add anything over and beyond this. Speakers' intuitive knowledge of such things might plausibly be based on
formal criteria, such as the traditional grammatical definition of English nouns aforementioned.
Prototypically referential expressions
Another semantic definition of nouns is that they're
prototypically referential. That definition is also not very helpful in distinguishing actual nouns from verbs. But it may still correctly identify a core property of nounhood. For example, we'll tend to use nouns like "fool" and "car" when we wish to refer to fools and cars, respectively. The notion that this is
prototypical reflects the fact that such nouns can be used, even though nothing with the corresponding property is referred to:
» John is no
fool.
If I'd a
car, I'd go to Marrakech.
The first sentence above doesn't refer to any fools, nor does the second one refer to any particular car.
Predicates with identity criteria
The British logician
Peter Thomas Geach proposed a very subtle semantic definition of nouns. He noticed that adjectives like "same" can modify nouns, but no other kinds of parts of speech, like
verbs or
adjectives. Not only that, but there also doesn't seem to be any
other expressions with similar meaning that can modify verbs and adjectives. Consider the following examples.
» Good: John and Bill participated in the
same fight.
Bad: *John and Bill
samely fought.
There is no English adverb "samely". In some other languages, like Czech, however there are adverbs corresponding to "samely". Hence, in Czech, the translation of the last sentence would be fine; however, it would mean that John and Bill fought
in the same way: not that they participated in the
same fight. Geach proposed that we could explain this, if nouns denote logical
predicates with
identity criteria. An identity criterion would allow us to conclude, for example, that "person x at time 1 is
the same person as person y at time 2". Different nouns can have different identity criteria. A well known example of this is due to Gupta:
» National Airlines transported 2 million
passengers in 1979.
National Airlines transported (at least) 2 million
persons in 1979.
Given that, in general, all passengers are persons, the last sentence above ought to follow logically from the first one. But it doesn't. It is easy to imagine, for example, that on average, every person who travelled with National Airlines in 1979, travelled with them twice. In that case, one would say that the airline transported 2 million
passengers but only 1 million
persons. Thus, the way that we count
passengers isn't necessarily the same as the way that we count
persons. Put somewhat differently: At two different times,
you may correspond to two distinct
passengers, even though you're one and the same person. For a precise definition of
identity criteria, see Gupta..
In
English and most other languages that use the
Latin alphabet, proper nouns are usually
capitalized. Languages differ in whether most elements of multiword proper nouns are capitalised (for example, American English
House of Representatives) or only the initial element (for example, Slovenian
Državni zbor 'National Assembly'). In
German, nouns of all types are capitalized. The convention of capitalizing
all nouns was previously used in English, but ended circa 1800. In America, the shift in capitalization is recorded in several noteworthy documents. The end (but not the beginning) of the
Declaration of Independence (1776) and all of the
Constitution (1787) show nearly all nouns capitalized, the
Bill of Rights (1789) capitalizes a few common nouns but not most of them, and the
Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment (1865) only capitalizes proper nouns.
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example the word God is capitalised as a proper noun when used in a
monotheistic context, because it's used as the name of a particular god. Another example is the word "Internet" which can refer to any inter-connection of computer networks using particular technologies ("an internet") but usually refers to one particular example of this "the Internet". In the vast majority of usage, it's a proper noun, and thus capitalized. Also, it can be used as a common noun when talking about "internet technologies" (
TCP/IP,
DNS,
HTTP) that can be used on any sort of internet, not necessarily "the Internet".
Owing to the essentially arbitrary nature of
orthographic classification and the existence of variant authorities and adopted
house styles, questionable capitalization of words isn't uncommon, even in respected newspapers and magazines. Most publishers, however, properly require
consistency, at least within the same document, in applying their specified standard.
The common meaning of the word or words constituting a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For example, someone might be named "Tiger Smith" despite being neither a
tiger nor a
smith. For this reason, proper nouns are usually not
translated between languages, although they may be
transliterated. For example, the German surname
Knödel becomes
Knodel or
Knoedel in English (not the literal
Dumpling). However, the
transcription of place names and the names of
monarchs,
popes, and non-contemporary
authors is common and sometimes universal. For instance, the
Portuguese word
Lisboa becomes
Lisbon in
English; the English
London becomes
Londres in French; and the
Greek Aristotelēs becomes
Aristotle in English.
Countable and uncountable nouns
Count nouns are common nouns that can take a
plural, can combine with
numerals or
quantifiers (for example "one", "two", "several", "every", "most"), and can take an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). Examples of count nouns are "chair", "nose", and "occasion".
Mass nouns (or
non-count nouns) differ from count nouns in precisely that respect: they can't take plural or combine with number words or quantifiers. Examples from English include "laughter", "cutlery", "helium", and "furniture". For example, it isn't possible to refer to "a furniture" or "three furnitures". This is true even though the pieces of furniture comprising "furniture" could be counted. Thus the distinction between mass and count nouns shouldn't be made in terms of what sorts of things the nouns
refer to, but rather in terms of how the nouns
present these entities.
Collective nouns
Collective nouns are nouns that refer to
groups consisting of more than one individual or entity, even when they're inflected for the
singular. Examples include "committee", "herd", and "school" (of herring). These nouns have slightly different grammatical properties than other nouns. For example, the
noun phrases that they
head can serve as the
subject of a
collective predicate, even when they're inflected for the singular. A
collective predicate is a predicate that normally can't take a singular subject. An example of the latter is "talked to each other".
» Good: The
boys talked to each other.
Bad: *The
boy talked to each other.
» Good: The
committee talked to each other.
Concrete nouns and abstract nouns
Concrete nouns refer to
physical bodies which you use at least one of your
senses to observe. For instance, "chair", "apple", or "Janet".
Abstract nouns on the other hand refer to
abstract objects, that's ideas or concepts, such as "justice" or "hate". While this distinction is sometimes useful, the boundary between the two of them isn't always clear; consider, for example, the noun "art". In English, many abstract nouns are formed by adding noun-forming suffixes ("-ness", "-ity", "-tion") to adjectives or verbs. Examples are "happiness", "circulation" and "serenity".
Nouns and pronouns
Noun phrases can typically be replaced by
pronouns, such as "he", "it", "which", and "those", in order to avoid repetition or explicit identification, or for other reasons. For example, in the sentence "Janet thought that he was weird", the word "he" is a pronoun standing in place of the name of the person in question. The English word
one can replace parts of
noun phrases, and it sometimes stands in for a noun. An example is given below:
» John's car is newer than
the one that Bill has.
But
one can also stand in for bigger subparts of a noun phrase. For example, in the following example,
one can stand in for
new car.
» This new car is cheaper than
that one.
Substantive as a word for "noun"
Starting with old
Latin grammars, many European languages use some form of the word
substantive as the basic term for noun. Nouns in the dictionaries of such languages are demarked by the abbreviation "s" instead of "n", which may be used for proper nouns instead. This corresponds to those grammars in which nouns and adjectives phase into each other in more areas than, for example, the English term
predicate adjective entails. In French and Spanish, for example, adjectives frequently act as nouns referring to people who have the characteristics of the adjective. An example in English is:
» The
poor you've always with you.
Similarly, an adjective can also be used for a whole group or organization of people:
» The Socialist
International.
Hence, these words are substantives that are usually adjectives in English.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Noun'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://noun.totallyexplained.com">Noun Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |