<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Simon Smith said<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:41744fe40911020506h5ca95050j96867cf1a0bc546b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">@Mike:
Can you say any more about the theory that words do not have a
pre-determined POS? I have to confess I had always thought the
interpretation of "church" in "church tower" as an adjective to
be nothing more than a non-linguist's misunderstanding. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">It
seems more economical to say that any noun can (in principle) modify
any other noun, as part of a noun compound, than to record an
additional POS, namely adjective, for every single noun in the
lexicon. I would say, too, that there is no more reason to make out a
special case for substance-item compounds, such as "gold watch" and
"lead balloon", than there is for "radium watch" (G Pullum's example)
or "iridium balloon". </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">However,
theories which assign POS elsewhere than in the lexicon would cause
problems for that explanation (as well as for lexicographers, I would
have thought).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> </span></p>
</blockquote>
That assumes there is a "true" POS which each word possesses. A rose is
a noun is a noun, so to speak . Wouldn't it be more economical still,
though, to say there are roles, and that almost any word can take on
almost any role? So that in the case of<br>
(1) That "through" is saw in your essay should have been a "throughout"<br>
both through and throughout were playing noun roles and we know that by
their being preceded by that or a.<br>
<br>
Cheers -- Mike <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mike Scott
***
If you publish research which uses WordSmith, do let me know so I can include it at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/papers_using_wordsmith.htm">http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/papers_using_wordsmith.htm</a>
***
University of Aston and Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mike.scott@aston.ac.uk">mike.scott@aston.ac.uk</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.lexically.net">www.lexically.net</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>