Homonyms

[Ali]

Geordies sound like Bostonians with Down Syndrome, eh? I can't work out to whom that statement is most offensive!

By coincidence I was this very night playing the scene with the Geordie on the train from Broken Sword. I guess Geordie is a tricky accent, mainly because of dialect words like 'howay', but not as tricky as Northern Ireland.

[SSH]

Sorry, SSH, but those are in no way adjectives.
Tuomas and Stupot are absolutely right, so just trust us on this one

As opposed  to trusting the dictionary that says:

â€"adjective
18.
curved outward at the center; bent: bow legs.

â€"adjective
5.
of or pertaining to the bow of a ship.

OK, here's maybe a better one: abstract
n: summary
v: steal
a: non-concrete

or mean:
n: average
a: nasty or poor
v: definition or intention

As far as I can see "mean" is the best example, as there seems to be different etymology for the three cases which are all entirely independent. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mean

However, there is some interaction between the meaning "average" and meaning "poor" in the same way that the word "common" can mean both "average" and "poor".

Oh, and its a homophone of mein, too!

[Questionable]

It wouldn't be the first time the dictionary lied...

[SSH]

Well, of course, the word "adjective" can be defined as "The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying and distinguished in English morphologically by one of several suffixes, such as -able, -ous, -er,  and -est, or syntactically by position directly preceding a noun or nominal phrase." in which "bow" fits. Or you can start applying esoteric rules to restrict it further, by excluding quantitites and calling them "determiners" instead and saying that attributive nouns used as adjectives aren't etc.

Its analgous to someone saying that there are three forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas) and then a physicist then coming along and saying no, what about plasma and Boseâ€"Einstein condensates. All very well and true, but you also have to accept that in the world of normal people there is a simpler model that uses some of the same terminology differently to specialists. That model is not necessarily wrong but there may be contrdictions between the simple and complex models.

Apparently those ignoramuses at many dictionaries use the simpler model.



Anyway, back to Homonyms, etc. In Chinese there is a poem called Shī Shì shí shī shǐ. Its about a poet who eats lions in his stone den.

[Andail]

SSH, "mean" and "abstract" are perfect adjectives (and the other classes too btw, good work there )

It troubles me a bit that you don't recognise the very simple rules that describe the wordclass of adjectives. There's nothing esoteric about how bow in "bow tie" and "bow lifeboat" simply isn't an adjective!

What about collar? You can say collar bone, is that an adjective since it modifies bone? Or wait, you can say four legged, so I guess four is also an adjective?

Its analgous to someone saying that there are three forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas) and then a physicist then coming along and saying no, what about plasma and Boseâ€"Einstein condensates. All very well and true, but you also have to accept that in the world of normal people there is a simpler model that uses some of the same terminology differently to specialists. That model is not necessarily wrong but there may be contrdictions between the simple and complex models.

This is all analogous to you not willing to accept that you're wrong

[Tuomas]

Anyway, back to Homonyms, etc. In Chinese there is a poem called Shī Shì shí shī shǐ. Its about a poet who eats lions in his stone den.

Hate to be a prick, but those of course lack the homophonic side of homonyms and thusly are just homographs in a sense. though only in pinyin, in mandarin they're all different characters

[SSH]

Err, many of the Chinese words are homophones: there are only 4 tones and at least a couple of dozen different meanings from those 4 tones.

So, what would you say is the real definining characteristic of an adjective? Most high-school kids would be told that it is a word that it limits, qualifies or specifies a noun. What additional rule is it that you're applying to bow to rule it out?

[Tuomas]

yeah, but homophones are pronounced the same, homographs written and homonyms both, two kinds of shi here are pronounced differently but sound the same to most of us. The pronounciation is what separates the two words/syllables so there's a complamentary distribution between the í and ì and all of them.

Adjective is an open word class (nomini) which includes noun, adjective, verbs and adverbs to name a few. Adjective does define/modify a noun or a pronoun, but it is also used comparatively, which a noun as an appoisition doesn't. In most languages the adjective word also bends with the numerus (number) or genus (gender) of the word making it either plural or singular, masculine, neutral or feminine: see "ein schönes Mädchen, das schöne Mädchen/kleine Kinder, kleines Kind. Of course in English there's no wordgenders, but there is comparative, which  is one of the fine defining things of language you guys haven't thrown away already: good, better, best... *bow, bower, bowerest tie. Sadly you also have no suffix to indicate the number of the noun either

However, a noun can also act as a defining or modifying part of a noun mentioned, a pronoun can. Quite a few can, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner_(class)#English_determiners_2

So basically your definition of an adjective is correct, but it's like saying bread is food. There are other edible things too

[Andail]

SSH, how do you respond to this

What about collar? You can say collar bone, is that an adjective since it modifies bone? Or wait, you can say four legged, so I guess four is also an adjective?

?

The problem is that with wordclasses, you need to look at the word's inherent qualities. Sure, you can put bow before stuff to modify it or classify it, and you can also use it with adjectives or nouns to create compounds. It doesn't mean that bow in itself is an adjective, because it can't describe any arbitrary noun.

Purple, big, small, attractive etc work as standalone adjectives - you can put them in front of any noun (it won't always make sense, but it won't turn out ungrammatical). Like a purple curtain and a small car but also a purple idea which doesn't necessarily make sense, but is still a grammatical phrase.

You can't say "I saw a bow sofa yesterday" or "the road is very bow" to indicate that something has a curved shape.

[SSH]

How would you distinguish two sofas on a boat, one at the stern and the other at the opposite end? So "the bow sofa" would make sense there. As for "the road is very bow", I think you could say that a road is bow, it wouldn't be a common usage but then that doesn't make it wrong. Seems that you're having trouble defining adjective, too.

There's this interesting bit on the wikipedia article: "In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"). " which is perhaps what you are trying to say.

However, if someone is bow legged, the legs would be bow. This doesn't work for the bow (ship) pseudo-adjective, though, I admit. And most people would say "bowed" rather than "bow", but "his legs were bow" features in  Lorna Doone

[Andail]

but "his legs were bow" features in  Lorna Doone

This is the only relevant argument you've come up with so far, so let's just say you're right.
(Even though noone born after the industrial revolution would actually make such an utterance)

I guess we just have to accept that you regard every noun as an adjective and move on...

[Tuomas]

Good. The bow in bow-legged sounds to me like it started out as bow-like legs and was used enough to make it a common phrase in the language. However, the grammar can always disagree.

[SSH]

I guess we just have to accept that you regard every noun as an adjective and move on...

I guess that we also have to accept that for all your condescending tone and supposed expertise you're still unable to answer what rule it is that bow was supposedly breaking other than having some unspecified "inherent qualities".

[Stupot]

'bow-legged' is a single unit. The hyphen gives that away.

It seems Ms. Doone has taken that set unit and played with it.  Indeed she seems to have cleverly used it as an adjective in this way, but this in an exception to the trend, and not enough to change the definition of the word.

[Andail]

I guess that we also have to accept that for all your condescending tone and supposed expertise you're still unable to answer what rule it is that bow was supposedly breaking other than having some unspecified "inherent qualities".

SSH well I'm sorry but I've really really tried.

Maybe you could consult some other grammarian or language teacher whom you trust better and get a proper explanation, as apparently I don't cut it.

Until then, it would be interesting to hear you address this question I've asked several times by now - is every noun an adjective? Because virtually every noun can be used as you have used "bow", however you have dodged this question every time.

[Snarky]

Adjectives are a fuzzy class which tends to blend over into both nouns and verbs (i.e. there are adjective-like noun and verb forms, and it's common to construct new adjectives from nouns and verbs). I don't think we can say definitely that in this case or that case, a word is an "adjective". I seem to remember that professional linguists therefore use more sophisticated classifications.

Like Andail, I would resist considering noun modifiers as adjectives in most cases (IMO even when the modifying noun describes the shape, material, position or other property of the modified noun, e.g. "wicker chair", "front row", not just in cases like "car park" or "table manners"). Maybe this is because compound nouns are usually written as a single word in the Scandinavian languages, which makes it more natural to consider it to be of the same class as the compound as a whole.

If you would say "a very bow leg" or "the left leg is more bow than the right one", you are probably right that "bow" is an adjective. I don't think those expressions would be grammatical to most English-speakers, though, so it might be an archaic or a dialect usage.

[SSH]

I guess that we also have to accept that for all your condescending tone and supposed expertise you're still unable to answer what rule it is that bow was supposedly breaking other than having some unspecified "inherent qualities".

SSH well I'm sorry but I've really really tried.

Where?

Until then, it would be interesting to hear you address this question I've asked several times by now - is every noun an adjective? Because virtually every noun can be used as you have used "bow", however you have dodged this question every time.

No, I don't think so. Since one apparently doesn't have to explain, I'll leave it at that.

[Stupot]

Well lets take any number of other such compounds... would you call 'cauliflower' and adjective because it appears in the phrase 'cauliflower ear'?  Well, you might, but you'd be wrong.

I could, if I wanted to, have a play about and come up with something like Doone: 'his ears were cauliflower'...
Or as Snarky has done: 'a very cauliflower ear', or 'the left ear was more cauliflower than the right one'.

But these are all examples of a bit of word-play based on the compound noun 'cauliflower ear' and by no means give the word 'cauliflower' license to call itself an adjective.

Bow-legged is exactly the same... except it has a hyphen, so to me 'bow' is even LESS eligible for adjectivisation than 'cauliflower' is.

Is 'club' an adjective because of 'club-foot'?
Is 'cock' an adjective because of 'cock-eyed'?
Is 'beer' an adjective because of 'beer belly'?

I'm going to argue 'no' in all cases.

[SSH]

You do know that Lorna Doone is the title of the book and that the author is called Richard Doddridge Blackmore?

Your argument is persuasive in the examples you give, Stupot, but the thing is you're telling me could also be used for the word "orange". Why is orange an adjective and cauliflower or bow, not. Obviously all of these words are also a noun, but that isn't what disqualifies bow and caluiflower or orange would be disqualified too. So what is, exactly?

You can say that bow is not an adjective becuase it is short for "like a bow", but then so is orange as an adjective short for like an orange. Is it simply down to the frequency of usage, and if I could presuade (in theory) thousands of people or maybe a couple of famous authors to use bow as an adjective frequently then it would become a valid adjective?

[Andail]

Your argument is persuasive in the examples you give, Stupot

I guess you're ignoring me completely now, as I've given the same kind of examples, but hey I'll keep going anyway...

Is it simply down to the frequency of usage, and if I could presuade (in theory) thousands of people or maybe a couple of famous authors to use bow as an adjective frequently then it would become a valid adjective?

You're entering a new ball park now, SSH. Naturally, if people started to use "bow" as an adjective, it would become one. Language is what you make it.

Then in the end you could say "the line I just drew is bower than yours" and "My house has the bowest roof of all the houses in my block" and "I don't like this street, it's too bow"

But right now we're not there yet - as we perceive "bow" now, it's not an adjective. Actually, that's the only way I can explain it; it can't be used as a stand alone adjective (only as a modifier in compounds - but so can virtually any noun) and hence it isn't an adjective, end of story.

PS: also...

No, I don't think so. Since one apparently doesn't have to explain, I'll leave it at that.

I think you're taking this a bit too much as some kind of debating competition. I'm not pretending to know the English language better than you (as a non-native I know I don't), so let's not be childish. I think the "are all nouns adjectives"-question is rather relevant in this context.

Oh boy...I'm spending all my coffee breaks the exact same way I spend the time between them...talking grammar