Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Are names of days and months proper nouns?

Expand Messages
  • Charlie
    ... Any 24-hour period (commonly midnight to midnight) is called a day. Day is a common noun. In the seven-day cycle commonly used each day has a name.
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
      >
      > Are the names of days-of-the-week and months-of-the-year "proper nouns" in
      > English?
      > What about in German or in French?
      > What makes them "proper" nouns?
      > Are the names of years, in languages which name years rather than number
      > them, proper nouns?
      >

      Any 24-hour period (commonly midnight to midnight) is called a day. Day is a common noun. In the seven-day cycle commonly used each day has a name. E.g., the second day of every cycle is named Monday. To me, it is this that makes the names of the days of the week proper nouns. Then, the names of the days of the week are capitalized in English because they are proper nouns. Mutatis mutandis with the months of the year.

      German capitalizes every noun. This doesn't make every noun proper. Other criteria must be used. Spanish does not capitalize the days of the week or the months of the year. This does not mean that they are not proper nouns, but that these languages have other rules for capitalization.

      Why are the names of the seasons, then, not capitalized in English? You got me!

      In the native orthography of Senjecas there are no capital letters. Thus, none are used when other orthographies are used. Sure makes things a lot easier!!

      Charlie
    • Muke Tever
      ... But that s an exception, not the rule. We don t normally make regular parts of things proper, even when cyclical; we don t say morning, noon, afternoon,
      Message 2 of 30 , Nov 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Charlie <caeruleancentaur@...> wrote:
        > Any 24-hour period (commonly midnight to midnight) is called a day. Day
        > is a common noun. In the seven-day cycle commonly used each day has a
        > name. E.g., the second day of every cycle is named Monday. To me, it
        > is this that makes the names of the days of the week proper nouns.

        But that's an exception, not the rule. We don't normally make regular
        parts of things proper, even when cyclical; we don't say morning, noon,
        afternoon, evening, and midnight as named parts of the day are proper
        nouns any more than we say named parts of a computer are proper nouns.
        It's not necessarily the case, then, that named parts of a week should be
        proper nouns; if our language treats them as proper (either semantically
        or orthographically), it's for a different reason.


        *Muke!
        --
        http://frath.net/
      • Eldin Raigmore
        On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:55:23 -0500, Eric Christopherson ... ... Paul Hartzer s Fri 14 Aug
        Message 3 of 30 , Nov 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:55:23 -0500, Eric Christopherson
          <rakko@...> wrote:
          >On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Eldin Raigmore wrote:
          >>Are the names of days-of-the-week and months-of-the-year "proper nouns"
          >>in English?
          >>What about in German or in French?
          >>What makes them "proper" nouns?
          >>Are the names of years, in languages which name years rather than number
          >>them, proper nouns?
          >I think these very issues were discussed in the thread "Punctuation,
          >capitalization, collation" starting in August 2009
          <http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0908b&L=conlang>
          >.

          Paul Hartzer's Fri 14 Aug post to the "Punctuation, capitalization, collation"
          thread comes closest, among posts in Week 2 of August on that thread, to
          addressing my questions in the "Are names of days and months proper nouns?"
          thread.
          It doesn't exactly answer the questions, though.
          It says that there are several unsettled issues about when and/or whether to
          capitalize certain words in written English. I think to some extent this may be
          seen as underlying uncertainty about whether those words are proper nouns in
          English, but nobody has actually said so.
          I still don't know how to tell which nouns in spoken English are proper nouns
          and which are common nouns; nor how to tell that in other languages. I'd
          prefer some cross-linguistic criterion that would work.

          There may be more pertinent (to _this_ thread) posts in Week 3 of Aug 2009
          under that thread, but there are 113 posts in Week 3 on that thread, so I
          haven't had time to go through them all yet.
        • Mark J. Reed
          I could swear we had a long thread about this quite recently, going back and forth on the orthography vs proper-nounness issue (are they capitalized because
          Message 4 of 30 , Nov 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I could swear we had a long thread about this quite recently, going
            back and forth on the orthography vs proper-nounness issue (are they
            capitalized because they're proper nouns or are they proper nouns
            because they're capitalized?) and of course pointing up the
            differences in capitalization among natlangs (German capitalizes
            everything, so is no help; Spanish doesn't capitalize the weekday and
            month names but does capitalize other "proper" nouns; etc).

            Not that we reached any reliable conclusions. :)
          • kate rhodes
            ... They re all names (or descended from names) of gods or planets. Sunday is named after the sun. Monday is the moon day. Tuesday is named for Tiwaz the god
            Message 5 of 30 , Nov 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              > What makes them "proper" nouns?

              They're all names (or descended from names) of gods or planets.

              Sunday is named after the sun.
              Monday is the moon day.
              Tuesday is named for Tiwaz' the god of the sky.
              Wednesday is Odin's day, from when they used to pronounce his name Woden.
              Thursday is Thor's day.
              Friday is Frigga's day. Frigg, or Frigga is the goddess of married
              love, or, in some places is was Freya's day because she more closely
              resembles the character of Venus who's day it also was.
              Saturday is, of course, Saturn's day.

              -Kate
            • Craig Daniel
              ... I think it has to do with whether they permit the without any other qualifications. Ergo: Joe ate a pickle. The Joe with green eyes ate a pickle. *The
              Message 6 of 30 , Nov 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
                > Charlie <caeruleancentaur@...> wrote:
                >>
                >> Any 24-hour period (commonly midnight to midnight) is called a day.  Day
                >> is a common noun.  In the seven-day cycle commonly used each day has a name.
                >>  E.g., the second day of every cycle is named Monday.  To me, it is this
                >> that makes the names of the days of the week proper nouns.
                >
                > But that's an exception, not the rule.  We don't normally make regular parts
                > of things proper, even when cyclical; we don't say morning, noon, afternoon,
                > evening, and midnight as named parts of the day are proper nouns any more
                > than we say named parts of a computer are proper nouns. It's not necessarily
                > the case, then, that named parts of a week should be proper nouns; if our
                > language treats them as proper (either semantically or orthographically),
                > it's for a different reason.

                I think it has to do with whether they permit "the" without any other
                qualifications. Ergo:

                Joe ate a pickle.
                The Joe with green eyes ate a pickle.
                *The Joe ate a pickle.
                On Monday I will go shopping.
                On the Monday after the full moon I will go shopping.
                *On the Monday I will go shopping.
                Halloween is fun.
                The Halloween when I went as an epiglottal trill was fun.
                *The Halloween is fun.
                April is the cruellest month.
                The April when you first do your own taxes is the cruellest month.
                *The April is the cruellest month.

                But:

                *Dog is happy.
                The dog with the floppy ears is happy.
                The dog is happy.
                *Book goes on for many pages without really advancing the plot.
                The book by Robert Jordan goes on for many pages without really
                advancing the plot.
                The book goes on for many pages without really advancing the plot.

                Seasons are somewhere in between:

                I love Paris in spring.
                I loved Paris in the spring of 1984.
                I love Paris in the spring.
                I wandered in summer in the elm-woods of Ossiriand.
                I wandered in the summer after my trip to Tasarinan in the elm-woods
                of Ossiriand.
                I wandered in the summer in the elm-woods of Ossiriand.

                Of course, arthrous proper nouns throw everything off. They would look
                like common nouns if it weren't for the fact that they tend to have
                only one referent each:

                *Hague is a significant city in international law.
                *The Hague we went to is a significant city in international law.
                The Hague is a significant city in international law.

                Despite this being the exact inverse of the normal proper-noun pattern
                above we seem to accept it.

                - CBD
              • Philip Newton
                ... Though that doesn t work in those German dialects which allow (or even require? not sure) the definite article with names of people: der Sepp und die
                Message 7 of 30 , Nov 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  2009/11/2 Craig Daniel <teucer@...>:
                  > I think it has to do with whether they permit "the" without any other
                  > qualifications.

                  Though that doesn't work in those German dialects which allow (or even
                  require? not sure) the definite article with names of people: "der
                  Sepp und die Maria" for "the Joe and the Mary". And breaks down
                  completely in Greek, which requires the definite article even for many
                  other proper nouns, such as cities and countries ("I come from the
                  Munich in the Germany").

                  Cheers,
                  Philip
                  --
                  Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                • Craig Daniel
                  ... Yeah, that pattern is a feature of English syntax. I have no idea what corresponding pattern if any holds in German or Greek - or if there s even a
                  Message 8 of 30 , Nov 2, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
                    > 2009/11/2 Craig Daniel <teucer@...>:
                    >> I think it has to do with whether they permit "the" without any other
                    >> qualifications.
                    >
                    > Though that doesn't work in those German dialects which allow (or even
                    > require? not sure) the definite article with names of people: "der
                    > Sepp und die Maria" for "the Joe and the Mary". And breaks down
                    > completely in Greek, which requires the definite article even for many
                    > other proper nouns, such as cities and countries ("I come from the
                    > Munich in the Germany").
                    >

                    Yeah, that pattern is a feature of English syntax. I have no idea what
                    corresponding pattern if any holds in German or Greek - or if there's
                    even a directly equivalent syntactic (as opposed to semantic) class of
                    proper nouns in those languages. I don't speak them.
                  • David McCann
                    ... This topic is currently being debated (with varying degrees of expertise) on the Conlanger and Zompist fora (or forums, if preferred). Obviously some
                    Message 9 of 30 , Nov 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 21:31 +0100, Philip Newton wrote:

                      > 2009/11/2 Craig Daniel <teucer@...>:
                      > > I think it has to do with whether they permit "the" without any other
                      > > qualifications.
                      >
                      > Though that doesn't work in those German dialects which allow (or even
                      > require? not sure) the definite article with names of people: "der
                      > Sepp und die Maria" for "the Joe and the Mary". And breaks down
                      > completely in Greek, which requires the definite article even for many
                      > other proper nouns, such as cities and countries ("I come from the
                      > Munich in the Germany").
                      >
                      This topic is currently being debated (with varying degrees of
                      expertise) on the Conlanger and Zompist fora (or forums, if preferred).

                      Obviously some languages do not have "proper" as a noun category: e.g.
                      Latin. Some very clearly do, like those Oceanic languages that have a
                      special article to mark proper nouns.

                      English seems to have a marginal category. Most proper nouns lack the
                      article, but some take it because it's a calque on another language (The
                      Hague) or for etymological reasons (The Atlantic < The Atlantic Ocean).
                      The fact that prototypical proper nouns can be distinguished (Charles,
                      London) shows we do have the category; the fact that the use of the
                      article is the only test and that there are irregular cases means that
                      it plays a very minor part in our grammar.

                      The fact that you can say "on the third Wednesday in the month" doesn't
                      seem any more of a problem than the fact that you can say "He'll be the
                      third Jason in the class." The form "on Wednesday", like "in London",
                      suggests that it's a proper noun. Now, did I say the opposite on the
                      forum ...
                    • Philip Newton
                      ... By that token, I suppose the seasons are proper nouns, too, since in spring is possible next to in the spring . Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton
                      Message 10 of 30 , Nov 3, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        2009/11/3 David McCann <david@...>:
                        > The form "on Wednesday", like "in London",
                        > suggests that it's a proper noun. Now, did I say the opposite on the
                        > forum ...

                        By that token, I suppose the seasons are proper nouns, too, since "in
                        spring" is possible next to "in the spring".

                        Cheers,
                        Philip
                        --
                        Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                      • Craig Daniel
                        ... Seasons allow both, as I noted upthread. Common nouns require the article (unless, of course, they are mass nouns, which seasons clearly aren t), proper
                        Message 11 of 30 , Nov 3, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
                          > 2009/11/3 David McCann <david@...>:
                          >> The form "on Wednesday", like "in London",
                          >> suggests that it's a proper noun. Now, did I say the opposite on the
                          >> forum ...
                          >
                          > By that token, I suppose the seasons are proper nouns, too, since "in
                          > spring" is possible next to "in the spring".

                          Seasons allow both, as I noted upthread. Common nouns require the
                          article (unless, of course, they are mass nouns, which seasons clearly
                          aren't), proper nouns forbid it in some contexts, and seasons seem to
                          do neither.

                          Which is a bit odd, since I can't think of any other words than those
                          four that follow that pattern.

                          - CBD
                        • Muke Tever
                          ... [snip] ... [snip] Trouble is that there are common nouns that can be anarthrous too; whether a noun takes an article in normal constructions is more a
                          Message 12 of 30 , Nov 3, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Craig Daniel <teucer@...> wrote:
                            > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
                            >> Charlie <caeruleancentaur@...> wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>> Any 24-hour period (commonly midnight to midnight) is called a day.
                            >>> Day
                            >>> is a common noun. In the seven-day cycle commonly used each day has a
                            >>> name.
                            >>> E.g., the second day of every cycle is named Monday. To me, it is
                            >>> this
                            >>> that makes the names of the days of the week proper nouns.
                            >>
                            >> But that's an exception, not the rule. We don't normally make regular
                            >> parts
                            >> of things proper, even when cyclical; we don't say morning, noon,
                            >> afternoon,
                            >> evening, and midnight as named parts of the day are proper nouns any
                            >> more
                            >> than we say named parts of a computer are proper nouns. It's not
                            >> necessarily
                            >> the case, then, that named parts of a week should be proper nouns; if
                            >> our
                            >> language treats them as proper (either semantically or
                            >> orthographically),
                            >> it's for a different reason.
                            >
                            > I think it has to do with whether they permit "the" without any other
                            > qualifications.
                            [snip]
                            > Of course, arthrous proper nouns throw everything off. They would look
                            > like common nouns if it weren't for the fact that they tend to have
                            > only one referent each:
                            [snip]

                            Trouble is that there are common nouns that can be anarthrous too; whether
                            a noun takes an article in normal constructions is more a function of
                            whether or not it's _uncountable_; it just happens that proper nouns are
                            one of the things that normally fall into that category.


                            *Muke!
                            --
                            http://frath.net/
                          • Philip Newton
                            ... It does? Look at the water! (uncountable) and Look at the horse! (countable) seem quite parallel to me. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton
                            Message 13 of 30 , Nov 4, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 00:34, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
                              > Trouble is that there are common nouns that can be anarthrous too; whether a
                              > noun takes an article in normal constructions is more a function of whether
                              > or not it's _uncountable_

                              It does?

                              "Look at the water!" (uncountable) and "Look at the horse!"
                              (countable) seem quite parallel to me.

                              Cheers,
                              Philip
                              --
                              Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                            • David McCann
                              ... On reflection, I think the case of proper nouns in English is like that of numerals in many languages. You get a variation in properties from one ,
                              Message 14 of 30 , Nov 4, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 13:45 -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:


                                > By that token, I suppose the seasons are proper nouns, too, since "in
                                > spring" is possible next to "in the spring".
                                >
                                > Seasons allow both, as I noted upthread. Common nouns require the
                                > article (unless, of course, they are mass nouns, which seasons clearly
                                > aren't), proper nouns forbid it in some contexts, and seasons seem to
                                > do neither.
                                >
                                > Which is a bit odd, since I can't think of any other words than those
                                > four that follow that pattern.
                                >
                                On reflection, I think the case of proper nouns in English is like that
                                of numerals in many languages. You get a variation in properties from
                                "one", typically treated as a normal adjective, to (say) "hundred",
                                treated as a normal noun, with intermediates having a mixture of
                                properties. Nevertheless, you can still recognise a category of numeral,
                                even though the properties of its members vary. In the context of
                                Slavonic numbers, Corbett called this a "squish".
                              • Alex Fink
                                On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:37 +0000, David McCann ... Really an adjective, in these many languages, not some kind of determiner?
                                Message 15 of 30 , Nov 4, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:37 +0000, David McCann <david@...>
                                  wrote:

                                  >On reflection, I think the case of proper nouns in English is like that
                                  >of numerals in many languages. You get a variation in properties from
                                  >"one", typically treated as a normal adjective

                                  Really an adjective, in these many languages, not some kind of determiner?
                                  Certainly numbers aren't much like adjectives syntactically in English (they
                                  have cooccurrence restructions with (other) determiners, they can't be used
                                  comparatively, they can't take degree modifiers, they can't be secondary
                                  predicates, ...)

                                  Alex
                                • Eldin Raigmore
                                  ... ... What about English [wVnst] /wunst/ ? Or or ?
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Nov 4, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:12:39 -0500, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                                    >On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:37 +0000, David McCann
                                    <david@...>
                                    >wrote:
                                    >>...
                                    >>"one", typically treated as a normal adjective
                                    >...
                                    >Certainly numbers aren't much like adjectives syntactically in English ...
                                    >they can't be used comparatively, they can't take degree modifiers,
                                    >...

                                    What about English [wVnst] /wunst/ <oncet>?
                                    Or <fiver> or <niner>?
                                  • Garth Wallace
                                    On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Eldin Raigmore ... What s oncet ? A fiver is a five-dollar bill (a noun). Niner is used when reading out digits in some
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Nov 4, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Eldin Raigmore
                                      <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
                                      > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:12:39 -0500, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:
                                      >>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:40:37 +0000, David McCann
                                      > <david@...>
                                      >>wrote:
                                      >>>...
                                      >>>"one", typically treated as a normal adjective
                                      >>...
                                      >>Certainly numbers aren't much like adjectives syntactically in English ...
                                      >>they can't be used comparatively, they can't take degree modifiers,
                                      >>...
                                      >
                                      > What about English [wVnst] /wunst/ <oncet>?
                                      > Or <fiver> or <niner>?

                                      What's "oncet"?

                                      A "fiver" is a five-dollar bill (a noun). "Niner" is used when reading
                                      out digits in some contexts (usually ones where the NATO Phonetic
                                      Alphabet or similar systems would be used for reading out letters).
                                      I've never heard or seen either of those used as comparatives.
                                    • Mark J. Reed
                                      I ve only heard oncet as a dialectical variant of once . I know of no usage distinction between them. ... Indeed. Niner for 9 goes with tree for 3,
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Nov 4, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I've only heard 'oncet' as a dialectical variant of 'once'. I know of
                                        no usage distinction between them.

                                        I agree with Garth:

                                        > A "fiver" is a five-dollar bill (a noun). "Niner" is used when reading
                                        > out digits in some contexts (usually ones where the NATO Phonetic
                                        > Alphabet or similar systems would be used for reading out letters).

                                        Indeed. "Niner" for 9 goes with 'tree' for 3, 'fower' for 4, and
                                        'fife' for 5 (and 'zero' for 0, which is not 'oh', dagnabit!).


                                        > I've never heard or seen either of those used as comparatives.

                                        Yeah, what would it mean to be more five or more nine than something else??

                                        73

                                        --
                                        Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
                                      • Muke Tever
                                        ... And that, I guess, would not be a normal construction— water is generally a mass noun, but Look at the water is a reference to a specific body of
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Nov 5, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
                                          > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 00:34, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
                                          >> Trouble is that there are common nouns that can be anarthrous too;
                                          >> whether a
                                          >> noun takes an article in normal constructions is more a function of
                                          >> whether
                                          >> or not it's _uncountable_
                                          >
                                          > It does?
                                          >
                                          > "Look at the water!" (uncountable) and "Look at the horse!"
                                          > (countable) seem quite parallel to me.

                                          And that, I guess, would not be a 'normal' construction—'water' is
                                          generally a mass noun, but "Look at the water" is a reference to a
                                          specific body of water, not to water per se.

                                          Compare:
                                          Water fell from the sky.
                                          The horse fell from the sky.
                                          The water fell from the sky.

                                          Water is liquid at room temperature.
                                          The horse is solid at room temperature.
                                          The water is liquid at room temperature.

                                          He wanted water.
                                          He wanted the horse.
                                          He wanted the water.

                                          In all of these, 'the water' is not used in the sense of a noun denoting a
                                          material (a mass noun, uncountable) but as a specific instance of that
                                          material.


                                          *Muke!
                                          --
                                          http://frath.net/
                                        • Philip Newton
                                          ... and the horse is not used in the sense of horses in general, but as a specific instance of that class. I confess that your explanation only made me more
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Nov 5, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 13:25, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
                                            > In all of these, 'the water' is not used in the sense of a noun denoting a
                                            > material (a mass noun, uncountable) but as a specific instance of that
                                            > material.

                                            and 'the horse' is not used in the sense of horses in general, but as
                                            a specific instance of that class.

                                            I confess that your explanation only made me more confused; I fail to
                                            see the point.

                                            Cheers,
                                            Philip
                                            --
                                            Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                                          • Andreas Johansson
                                            ... The point is that water behaves like horse precisely when, like horse , it s used as a count noun. When it s used as a mass noun, not refering to a
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Nov 5, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
                                              > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 13:25, Muke Tever <muke@...> wrote:
                                              >> In all of these, 'the water' is not used in the sense of a noun denoting a
                                              >> material (a mass noun, uncountable) but as a specific instance of that
                                              >> material.
                                              >
                                              > and 'the horse' is not used in the sense of horses in general, but as
                                              > a specific instance of that class.
                                              >
                                              > I confess that your explanation only made me more confused; I fail to
                                              > see the point.

                                              The point is that "water" behaves like "horse" precisely when, like
                                              "horse", it's used as a count noun. When it's used as a mass noun, not
                                              refering to a specific instance, it behaves differently, not taking
                                              the article, such supporting the notion that the use of the article
                                              depends on the 'countability' of the noun.



                                              --
                                              Andreas Johansson

                                              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                                            • Eldin Raigmore
                                              On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:22:43 -0800, Garth Wallace ... I was suggesting that maybe it s the superlative degree of the adjective one . ... Oh.
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Nov 5, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:22:43 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>
                                                wrote:

                                                >On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Eldin Raigmore
                                                ><eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
                                                >>...[snip]...
                                                >> What about English [wVnst] /wunst/ <oncet>?
                                                >> Or <fiver> or <niner>?
                                                >
                                                >What's "oncet"?

                                                I was suggesting that maybe it's the superlative degree of the adjective "one".

                                                >A "fiver" is a five-dollar bill (a noun). "Niner" is used when reading
                                                >out digits in some contexts (usually ones where the NATO Phonetic
                                                >Alphabet or similar systems would be used for reading out letters).
                                                >I've never heard or seen either of those used as comparatives.

                                                Oh. OK.


















                                                ;-)
                                              • Garth Wallace
                                                ... What would that even mean?
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Nov 5, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
                                                  > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:22:43 -0800, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>
                                                  > wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >>On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Eldin Raigmore
                                                  >><eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
                                                  >>>...[snip]...
                                                  >>> What about English [wVnst] /wunst/ <oncet>?
                                                  >>> Or <fiver> or <niner>?
                                                  >>
                                                  >>What's "oncet"?
                                                  >
                                                  > I was suggesting that maybe it's the superlative degree of the adjective "one".

                                                  What would that even mean?
                                                • Mark J. Reed
                                                  ... I think Eldin was just kidding. This is the sort of thing people point out when they re trying to emphasize the difference between determiners and true
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Nov 5, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Garth Wallace <gwalla@...> wrote:
                                                    > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
                                                    >> I was suggesting that maybe it's the superlative degree of the adjective "one".
                                                    >
                                                    > What would that even mean?

                                                    I think Eldin was just kidding. This is the sort of thing people
                                                    point out when they're trying to emphasize the difference between
                                                    determiners and true adjectives...


                                                    --
                                                    Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.