[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by pdh0224

Dear Mike,

I believe there are many grammarians with different views on the subject in question." People have a different way of thinking. It works in linguistic parts. I am also one of them.
As you know, the eight parts of speech are a noun, an adjective,an adverb....and so on. Those things function as their own, but sometimes their parts of speech are not same with their functions. I believe a part of speech depends on its meaning.
For example, 'We walked miles'. You think 'miles' is a noun in a part of speech, don't you . But it is an adverb when it comes to its function. A teacher who lives in UK says 'miles' is an adverbial objective. He mention about it '(Many) miles' here can be classified as an adverbial objective, representing in elliptical form the adverbial prepositional phrase 'for (many) miles'.

What do you think?

I think that there will always be individuals with alternative views on grammatical structure. I like the "parts of speech" system for several main reasons.

The first is that standard dictionaries follow that system. Many linguists invent terms and develop theories that explain subtleties that they perceive in the language. I have no problem with that, particularly when it occurs among linguists. The problem that I have is that learners get very confused when they look in a dictionary and do not find these new terms. Mile is not listed as an adverb in my dictionaries and "adverbial objective" is not listed as a part of speech.

The second reason is that when one starts to tinker with the edges of the system, many of the rules break down. This is OK, if one understands the rules and understands why a particular rule doesn't apply in a particular case.

Let me give you an example.

Take the construction:

I don't like him staring at you.

Some grammarians would call this structure an error, because of the objective pronoun "him" replacing the possessive pronoun "his". In the traditional system, "staring at you" is gerund phrase and "his" modifies the gerund/noun. What does one do with the "him" construction?

In the traditional model, the gerund phrase becomes a participial phrase because "him" can no longer modify "staring". That is a reasonable explanation, though some don't like it.

Some linguists say that the "him" structure is a non-finite clause, because the sense is that person referred to as him is doing the staring. OK, that's fair enough, but a clause needs a subject, and the traditional rule says that the subject of a clause cannot be in the objective case. So a new rule has to be developed. One linguistic grad student suggested "The subject of a non-finite clause is in the objective case." Ok, that works for this construction, but do we then have to add "finite" or "non-finite" every time we refer to the structure of a clause?

Any grammar analysis system is OK as long as it hangs together. Alternative models are possible, but I've not found anything that works as well as the parts of speech system.

Why are there many functions of one noun in a dictionary?
What is the standard of characterizing the eight parts of speech?
Is the standard a meaning or a function?

Let me show you another example.

'Now is time for you to help me.'
'Now' is an adverb in a dictionary. How can an adverb be the subject of the sentence?
It is an adverb functioning as a noun. That is an application of a function and meaning of a word. It allows us to express more things.

The parts of speech model works on function more than meaning.

If you check standard dictuionaries, you will find that "now" is listed as a noun. That is so just for the situation in your example.

How about this?

"Millennials believe in preparation, in their track records," Mr. Howe said. "They're thinking about what kinds of careers they're going to have."

I believe 'Millennial' is an adjective, and I also found it in a dictionary. But the writer used 'Millennial' as a noun. The noun of 'Millennial' is a 'Millennialist' or a 'Millennarian'. Is it grammatical sentence?
It seems to be an adjective which the writer has turned into a noun.
That's what I am saying.

It is quite common in English to turn adjectives into nouns. We have|

the poor
the rich
etc.

As "millennial" is used in that sentence, it follows that very common pattern. Whether or not that particular coinage is acceptable, depends on the reader. I have no problem with it.

You ask me

"What would you say about these?

We walked a mile.

"Mile" is marked as a noun by the indefinite article that precedes it.

We walked fifty feet.

"Feet" is marked as a noun because it is modified by an adjective.

This is my answer

We consider 'Miles' as a noun. But sometimes we need to use it as an adverb like that I mentioned.
'four miles' or 'fifty feet' is one cluster fuctioning as an adverb. It means 'miles' and 'feet' are a noun, it is modified by an adjective, and the cluster functions as an adverb.
If we frequently use 'miles' as an adverb, a dictionary hold the function of an adverb of 'Mile'. and then It can be modifed by an adverb. But It is not usual, and there is only a noun in a dictionary. For example, If people often use 'Millennial' as a noun, it become usual. It can be a noun. That's why there are many function of one word in a dictionary. I believe it is one of the mechanism of a language.

Yes, you mentioned using it as an adverb, but I haven't accepted that. Evidently dictionaries haven't accepted that either. I agree that words can have parts of speech added to the list as usage becomes common. When "Jazz" was first coined, it was a noun. It is now also listed as an adjective by many dictionaries. That happens. I don't expect it to happen with "mile", however. The explanation of "walk" as a transitive verb is the simpler explanation, IMO. :wink: