Talk:undead
The undead seems like a noun, but its inability to distinguish between singular and plural indicates that it's really just an adjective in a fused-head construction. It's like saying, "You take the long way and I'll take the short." Here, short is not a noun, it's just brief way of saying short way. Similarly, undead is just a short way of saying undead people.--Brett 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- My think on this is that it may be an implied abrieviation, in effect it is functioning as a noun. In construction like, "...the undead..." it effectively replaces a noun phrase, and by acting as the whole phrase is acting as a noun in the sentence. Much the same argument can be made for verb derived adjectives. That someone who "is depressed" implies "is depressed by (somthing)" even if something is "nothing." Similarly, some who is "married" had been "married by someone" (Okay, married is little more adjective because "to" can replace "by). But such words still function as adjectives. On the other hand, I know very little prescriptive grammar, only descriptive (linguistic) grammar -- so I could be wrong by convention.--Jared 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with prescription. Nobody's telling anybody that the way they use undead is wrong. It's all about the framework that we use to describe the language.
- The problem with describing undead as a noun is that this ability to "function as a noun" (see * below) is typical of adjectives. Thus, you can say the new, the old, the best, the early, the great and on and on. It may be true that a few words such as undead and homeless are used this way a particularly large proportion of the time, but that doesn't make them different. If we start down this path, then there is no principled reason why we shouldn't include "noun" senses for most adjectives, and I don't think we want to do that. Indeed, following this logic, we should also have adjective senses for most nouns (e.g., cupboard in the cupboard door).
- Another problem with this approach is that suddenly you have this group of "nouns" that are modifiable by adverbs but not by adjectives. You have the newly undead, but not *the new undead or the extremely happy, but not *the extreme happy. All English grammars I have ever consulted agree that it is a property of English that adjectives modify nouns and adverbs don't.
- It is, therefore, much more consistent to list these as adjectives and to leave it at that. Note that I am not arguing that there is zero overlap between the two classes adjective and noun. In the sentence, "Two wrongs don't make a right," wrong is clearly a noun even though it is more typically an adjective.
- *(Actually, noun does not constitute a function; rather, it's a class of words. Nouns function as subjects, objects, complements, adjuncts, modifiers, etc., so it would make much more sense to say that this word is functioning as a complement (in the first example) or object of the preposition (in the second) than to say it is functioning as a noun.)--Brett 11:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see any difference between listing types of noun functions and listing them categorically (other than space and convenience). Where I come from we do say "the new undead" and would never say the "newly undead" in such a context. But oh well, its not worth arguing about -- though I do find it odd that you left a noun definition even while removing the label. Anyway, I don't care, its not worth worrying about as long as people can read it.--Jared 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't "noun" functions per se. They are simply functions that are commonly performed by nouns. For example, in the sentence "After 5:00 is good for me," after 5:00 functions as the subject, but it's not a noun. In "the faculty office" faculty, a noun, is acting as a modifier. It's not "acting as an adjective," nor is it an adjective. In "I'll be home this week," this week is a noun phrase acting as an adjunct.
- Nor is there a need to list functions. You don't need to tell people that the noun "table" can function as a subject, an object, an object of the preposition, a complement, etc. That's taken for granted. It's part of being a noun. Similarly, we don't need to tell people that undead can head a noun phrase in a fused-head construction. That's understood.
- I agree that this isn't worth arguing about, if by arguing you mean fighting. But I think it is certainly worth discussing.--Brett 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)