Are numbers adjectives, nouns or pronouns?
Zip In The Wire
Is this interaction proper?
Joe: "How many people arrived today?"
Bill: "Sixteen were seen entering".
If the sentence is proper, sixteen must be a noun or a pronoun for the
sentence to have a subject. However, is sixteen a noun or a pronoun
because in this context it substitutes for the previous explicit noun,
people.
Eric Walker
[...]
>Joe: "How many people arrived today?"
>Bill: "Sixteen were seen entering".
>
>If the sentence is proper, sixteen must be a noun or a pronoun
>for the sentence to have a subject. However, is sixteen a
>noun or a pronoun because in this context it substitutes for
>the previous explicit noun, people.
It is an adjective modifying the elided term "persons":
Sixteen [persons] were seen entering.[1]
English allows us to drop words when their implied presence is
inescapable: that dropping is called ellipsis. It is a great
power, and therefore accordingly liable to great abuse. As
Wilson Follett put it,
The chief responsibility is to see to it that the words
omitted in the writing will infallibly be those supplied
in the reading.
Here, the elided term is unmistakable.
[1] When dealing with actually or notionally countable groups
of humans, it is best to use "persons", preserving the concept
of their individual identities; reserve "people" as a word for
almagamated crowds or collections ("Many people liked his last
book"). If five people enter a room and four people leave it,
what does the room hold? One peop?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Schultz
>
> On 9 Nov 2003 10:55:08 -0800, Zip In The Wire wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Joe: "How many people arrived today?"
> >Bill: "Sixteen were seen entering".
> >
> >If the sentence is proper, sixteen must be a noun or a pronoun
> >for the sentence to have a subject. However, is sixteen a
> >noun or a pronoun because in this context it substitutes for
> >the previous explicit noun, people.
>
> It is an adjective modifying the elided term "persons":
>
> Sixteen [persons] were seen entering.[1]
>
> English allows us to drop words when their implied presence is
Yeah, uh-huh.
"Big were seen entering."
"Ugly were seen entering."
See your error now? Those examples show that "sixteen" is NOT an
adjective.
Attributive numbers are determiners, like "those," "many," "his",
etc.
\\P. Schultz
Jane MacDonald
Actually, I'd call the "sixteen" in that sentence a "quantifier,"
rather than a "determiner."
In fact, however, only a tiny number of English-speakers has
any idea what either one of those is, while most literate people
know about adjectives, so what I'd really call the "sixteen" is an
adjective. In other words, for practical purposes Eric is right.
Eric was speaking in terms of traditional grammar, which
doesn't include a part of speech called a "determiner."
Linguists don't like traditional grammar, but since nobody
cares what linguists like, that's just tough.
Jane
Jane MacDonald
jane...@excite.com
http://janemac98.tripod.com
Schultz
> <...> Eric was speaking in terms of traditional grammar, which
> doesn't include a part of speech called a "determiner." <...>
And to show that it is an adjective, he used an example (elipsis)
that, together with my analogous examples, clearly showed that it
ISN'T an adjective.
If he wants it to be an adjective, that's fine. But in so
asserting it would be a good idea to choose examples that
underwrite his assertion instead of one that undermines it.
\\P. Schultz
Zip In The Wire
Goedel's theorem tells us that no symbolic system can be complete.
Grammar is the mathematics of language. I like to notice holes in
systems when I find them.
> English allows us to drop words when their implied presence is
> inescapable: that dropping is called ellipsis. It is a great
> power, and therefore accordingly liable to great abuse. As
> Wilson Follett put it,
This means we can end a sentence in a preposition if the object of the
preposition has an impled, inescapable presence.
Robert Lieblich
>
[ ... ]
> > English allows us to drop words when their implied presence is
> > inescapable: that dropping is called ellipsis. It is a great
> > power, and therefore accordingly liable to great abuse. As
> > Wilson Follett put it,
>
> This means we can end a sentence in a preposition if the object of the
> preposition has an impled, inescapable presence.
Of course. I have never seen a participant in this group deny that.
It also means that we can end a sentence in a preposition if its
object is an actual presence in the sentence. "What did you do that
for?" "She is the person that [or whom] I gave it to." "This much
I confess to."
--
Bob Lieblich
Not very elliptically
Schultz
> <...>
> preposition has an impled, inescapable presence.
Yeah, like if the person shows up in a prisoner's suit, he can
say "I've just come from." There is no need for him to say he has
come from prison, because that is obvious.
I assume that's what you meant?
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
My late mother-in-law used to ask me if I wanted "to go with."
Blame it on her Yiddish.
I think the Zip meant something involving dependent clauses with
elided "that"s -- "Are you the person [who/m] I'll be going with?"
But that's not nearly as funny?
--
Bob Lieblich
Party pooper
Schultz
> <...>
> My late mother-in-law used to ask me if I wanted "to go with."
They say that in Pennsylvania too. Same ultimate Teutonic source,
I assume.
\\P. Schultz
Eric Walker
[...]
>In fact, however, only a tiny number of English-speakers has
>any idea what either one of those is, while most literate
>people know about adjectives, so what I'd really call the
>"sixteen" is an adjective. In other words, for practical
>purposes Eric is right.
Madam, let me congratulate you on your guts. The number of
persons who would dare use "has" with "a number" is become
vanishingly small, and I salute them. I myself, whenever I can
manage to spot the thing coming, scrupulously avoid it
altogether, out of, and I admit it, sheer cowardice: I recast.
But I would sooner have dentistry without an anesthetic than
knowingly use a plural with "a number".
>Eric was speaking in terms of traditional grammar, which
>doesn't include a part of speech called a "determiner."
>Linguists don't like traditional grammar, but since nobody
>cares what linguists like, that's just tough.
Other linguists care, but that's about it. Well, come to think
on it, maybe not even other linguists do. Maybe the statement
was correct as it stood.
(Traditional grammar assuredly recognizes "determiners", but
not, as the lady says, as a "part of speech", but rather as a
subdivision of the part of speech traditionally called an
adjective, more particularly as a subdivision of the
demonstrative adjectives. But you knew that.)
Eric Walker
[...]
>This means we can end a sentence in a preposition if the
>object of the preposition has an impled, inescapable presence.
Can you elaborate what it is you are speaking of?
Schultz
>
> Madam, let me congratulate you on your guts. The number of
> persons who would dare use "has" with "a number" is become
A lot of people has even more guts.
\\P, Schultz
Howard G
Salute who? Those that use them or those that are vanishing?
Robert Lieblich
They does indeed.
Time to post a watch. I've caught Eric using singular "they" at
least twice. We'll see how long it takes to catch him on "a number
of ____ are." Prior record is two weeks; by coincidence, what I am
about to quote was posted to AUE on this same date four years ago:
--------------------
[commence quotation from prior posting of mine dated 11/11/99:]
Matt Curtin wrote:
[first quoting Richard Fontana]
> RF> "Whilst" is not used by Americans, who use only "while".
>
> If you qualify that with a "generally", I'll agree, but not otherwise.
> I use "whilst", as do a number of folks I know. [ . . . ]
Matt Curtin (on the thread "Usage of plural", 10/29/99):
<quote>
I would definitely say "A number of people has complained", because
the verb should match the subject, not the object of the
preposition.
</quote>
------------------
[end quotation from prior posting]
How long will Eric hold out?
--
Bob Lieblich
Waiting patiently
Eric Walker
>Schultz wrote:
>
>> Eric Walker wrote:
>> >
>> > Madam, let me congratulate you on your guts. The number
>> > of persons who would dare use "has" with "a number" is
>> > become vanishingly small, and I salute them. <...>
>>
>> A lot of people has even more guts.
>
>They does indeed.
What's the problem there? The noun "number" matches in, ah,
number the verb "is" (or its common substitute "has"). The
trailing pronoun "them" corresponds to "persons who would dare
use 'has' with 'a number'", and also matches it. In "That
number of persons is small, and I salute them", we have only
"That number of persons is small, and I salute those persons"
with a suitable pronoun substituted for "those persons". You
can feel free to send the brain surgeons and rocket scientists
back home: they're not needed today.
>Time to post a watch. I've caught Eric using singular "they"
>at least twice.
Even assuming that you are not erroneously counting this as an
instance, that's quite likely: I am not a paragon. Indeed, one
of my strongest arguments against bad usages of all sorts is
the corrupting influence they have, the degree to which they
give our natural ear for our mother tongue a severe case of
tinnitus. Usage manuals of any quality invariably derive their
specimens of ill uses from the most reputable of sources, just
to demonstrate that none are immune from error.[1] I have no
problem being put, even by implication, in that category.
>We'll see how long it takes to catch him on "a number of ____
>are." Prior record is two weeks; by coincidence, what I am
>about to quote was posted to AUE on this same date four years
>ago:
>
>--------------------
>[commence quotation from prior posting of mine dated
11/11/99:]
>
>Matt Curtin wrote:
>
>[first quoting Richard Fontana]
>
>> RF> "Whilst" is not used by Americans, who use only "while".
>>
>> If you qualify that with a "generally", I'll agree, but not
>> otherwise. I use "whilst", as do a number of folks I know.
[ . . . ]
>
>Matt Curtin (on the thread "Usage of plural", 10/29/99):
>
><quote>
>
>I would definitely say "A number of people has complained",
>because the verb should match the subject, not the object of
>the preposition.
>></quote>
>
>------------------
>[end quotation from prior posting]
>
>How long will Eric hold out?
I repeat: one's making stupid errors does not alter their
quality as stupid errors. I also repeat that I try to avoid
the form at all, so as not to have to meet the question of
whether to be correct but sounding awkward or be incorrect just
to sound like most folk. I will not willingly and knowingly be
incorrect, and i don't like to sound awkward, so I try to
recast. I guess it's what Garner calls a "skunked term".
[1] Or should that be "immune to"?
Schultz
>
> >Schultz wrote:
> >
> >> Eric Walker wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Madam, let me congratulate you on your guts. The number
> >> > of persons who would dare use "has" with "a number" is
> >> > become vanishingly small, and I salute them. <...>
> >>
> >> A lot of people has even more guts.
>
And the noun "lot" is singular too. It even has an indefinite
article to prove it. So if a number of people has doubts about
your proposition, it follows that a lot of people does too.
\\P. Schultz
Yukon Jack
> of humans, it is best to use "persons", preserving the concept
> of their individual identities; reserve "people" as a word for
> almagamated crowds or collections ("Many people liked his last
> book"). If five people enter a room and four people leave it,
> what does the room hold? One peop?
No. One poop. <sorry, I couldn't resist!>
Mike Bandy
>And the noun "lot" is singular too. It even has an indefinite
>article to prove it. So if a number of people has doubts about
>your proposition, it follows that a lot of people does too.
I don't think I understand this discussion.
"The number is ... "
"A number are ... "
"The lot is ... "
"A lot are ... "
Surely everyone agrees?
--
Mike Bandy
Schultz
Unless a lot of people agrees with you, I guess you don't
understand the discussion.
\\P. Schultz