The plural form of adjectives in poetry and lyrics

[jutfrank]

The borders between word classes are sometimes fuzzy.

By fuzzy, I read 'confused'.

Most modern grammarians appear to feel that both form and function are vital elements in effective definition.

That's because it is not possible to define words solely by their form outside of their use in context. In my view it is a mistake to say that young is an adjective. It's untrue and ultimately meaningless. What you can say is that it can be an adjective and it can also be a noun. The best you can possibly do is say that statistically, it is very likely to be an adjective. But then the response to that would be why use the word 'adjective' at all? Why not just use the label 'modifier'?

Not so long as you keep the two things distinct.

But this is not possible, as is being demonstrated here. What we're discussing is the confusion of form and function as I perceive it in your (and many notable grammarians') view of grammar.

Form. To say (for example) simply that a word that has a comparative and superlative form is an adjective unhelpful. Some adjectives don't, and comparative and superlative forms forms are typical of many adverbs.

Yes. So in I ran fastest, you accept that fastest is an adverb. I'm not clear on whether you regard it as an adjective as well?

Function:To say (for example) that a word that modifies a noun is an adjective is equally unhelpful. Nouns, prepositional phrases and whole clauses can also modify a noun.

Yes, I think it isn't very helpful. I don't know about 'equally', though. My current view is that it's a bit less unhelpful.

It is a pronoun.

Again, by what criteria do you measure this? What evidence is there? It is preceded by very, which is good evidence of it not being a pronoun. Is the reasoning you're using purely statistical? I mean, is it simply the fact that it is almost always used in the way that pronouns are used which makes it a pronoun? I don't really see how other uses of the same word have a bearing on this word used in this specific context. Do you consider very you as an adjective phrase with a pronoun as a head?

When the word Italian refers to language or a person, it is a noun. When it refers to the nationality/origin of a person or thing, it is an adjective.

Now you seem to be confusing form and function, by claiming that the class depends on what it refers to.

The same thing happens with other word classes: act can be a noun or verb, fear a verb or adjective.

But I'd like you to clarify two things before we move forward. 1) Do you consider act as a noun or a verb or as both or as neither? 2) Does it depend on how the word is used in the context or not?

It depends on both form and function. In His fear showed in his face, for example, fear is a noun because it is preceded by a determiner and could be used with a plural suffix (form) and because it is the subject of the verb/sentence, and could be the direct object in His face showed his fear (function).

The fact that it is preceded by a determiner (function) is not strong evidence. We can say the rich, the poor, the many, etc. The fact that it can be used with a plural suffix (form) is very strong evidence. The fact that it is the subject/object (function) is not strong evidence. You cannot use function as the criteria by which to classify form. This is a confusion of form and function. This is my main point.

As you suggested yourself, we can say, with the same meaning, The Chinese people are coming. We can't say The Italians people are coming. This is because Chines is an adjective and Itlian is a noun.

My point was that the Italians and the Chinese mean the Italian people and the Chinese people. We ought really to say the Chineses, but there is (or was at some point in the past) a phonological resistance, as it were, which disallowed a plural suffix in the regularisation process. The words ending with /z/ and the other sounds in the group created an irregular pattern.

so there appears to be no phonological objection to such forms.

There doesn't have to be, but there was in the case of referring to Chinese/French, etc. We can be as creative and novel as we wish when there is a need for us to do so.

 

[Rover_KE]

Thank you for this in-depth exchange of views, but as the OP last responded in post #13 and has obviously lost interest—maybe even the will to live:-(—I'll close the thread for now.