Is tree 'living thing'?

[Pokemon]

The 'opinion' here is, as fivejedjon knows, related to the belief about animate objects. Trees do indeed respire. That's why nurse remove plants from hospital wards at night.

b

It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is a naive concept. It does not include the scientific knowledge related to it. What is water? It's a liquid we drink, wash in, etc. The chemical formula of water has nothing to do with the meaning of the word. It describes the substance denoted by this word.

 

[Evil Anagram]

Not a Teacher

It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is a naive concept. It does not include the scientific knowledge related to it. What is water? It's a liquid we drink, wash in, etc. The chemical formula of water has nothing to do with the meaning of the word. It describes the substance denoted by this word.

If you're using a scientific qualifier for the basis of whether or not a tree counts as animate or inanimate, then the scientific knowledge related to it certainly does have something to do with the meaning of the word. If you define "animate" as "that which breathes," then trees are animate.

 

[Raymott]

Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pokemon]

In the Russian language I can definitely say whether a noun is animate or inanimate by the inflexion in the Accusative case: I see a bush, but I see Bush-a. I believe inflexions dying out in English resulted in a lot of confusion in the language picture of the world: what is animate and what is inanimate, what is masculine and what is feminine, etc.?

 

[Evil Anagram]

Such inflections fell out of use in English centuries ago. I understand how this might be confusing to people used to thinking in heavily gendered languages or languages with accusative inflections like you described, but native English thinkers tend to accept the ambivalence. Gender and animate/inanimate dichotomies simply don't carry over into our grammar structure.

 

[Pokemon]

A dialogue of cultures - that's what I would call it.

I feel I need to share the conclusion I've drawn from this interesting and heated discussion: the opposition 'animate vs. inanimate' has very little if any grammatical expression in English and exists mostly on the lexical level. I hope the threadstarter doesn't take offence at us that we went beyond the scope of the original question. For me, as a learner of English, it was very useful, and I believe so was it for the person who started this talk.

 

[birdeen's call]

In the Russian language I can definitely say whether a noun is animate or inanimate by the inflexion in the Accusative case: I see a bush, but I see Bush-a. I believe inflexions dying out in English resulted in a lot of confusion in the language picture of the world: what is animate and what is inanimate, what is masculine and what is feminine, etc.?

Yes, it's a fact that there is no distinction between inanimate and animate nouns in English. If there is such a [STRIKE]confusion[/STRIKE] distinction (I'm sorry about this word; it wasn't intentional. I confused words.) in Russian, fine. But saying that English speakers are "confused" because of that is nonsense. In what way? Do they confuse what's alive with what isn't? No. But you're not talking about it. You don't want to discuss biology. OK. Do they confuse animate nouns with inanimate ones? No, because as you said yourself, there's no such distinction in English grammar.

I didn't do my Russian lessons, so I'm not sure about Russian. But in Polish, there's no such thing as an inanimate noun either. There's a class of nouns that mean things that are "not persons and not grammatically masculine" or something like that.

 

[Barb_D]

Can someone remind me of the purpose of this thread?

I'm astonished anyone would say a tree is not alive, not a living thing. (Assuming it will flourished.)
I would be equally astonished if anyone argued it was a sentient being.

What is the point here? Whether we use "it" or "he"?

Are we arguing biology or grammar?

This debate is one of the oddest ones I've ever read here. And that's saying something!

 

[Pokemon]

Yes, it's a fact that there is no distinction between inanimate and animate nouns in English. If there is such a [STRIKE]confusion[/STRIKE] distinction (I'm sorry about this word; it wasn't intentional. I confused words.) in Russian, fine. But saying that English speakers are "confused" because of that is nonsense. In what way? Do they confuse what's alive with what isn't? No. But you're not talking about it. You don't want to discuss biology. OK. Do they confuse animate nouns with inanimate ones? No, because as you said yourself, there's no such distinction in English grammar.

I didn't do my Russian lessons, so I'm not sure about Russian. But in Polish, there's no such thing as an inanimate noun either. There's a class of nouns that mean things that are "not persons and not grammatically masculine" or something like that.

Thank you, birdeen's call. "When your mind is confused, could it be the impact of your mother tongue?" That could be an interesting topic for discussion.

 

[bhaisahab]

Not a Teacher


...Besides, it's completely possible to envision a sexless, genderless entity capable of moving and breathing on its own.

Yes, eels are living creatures that have no gender until it is time to mate, at which time they develop masculine or feminine genitalia according to need.

 

[BobK]

Can someone remind me of the purpose of this thread?

...

This debate is one of the oddest ones I've ever read here. And that's saying something!

Same here. ;-)


b

 

[Pokemon]

Same here. ;-)


b

It was one of the most interesting debates I've taken part in. If I had found it odd why would I have participated in it?