"John Reimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Hello Nick, > >> "John Reimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> >>> Hello Nick, >>> >>>> But, of course, adjectives (just like "direct/indirect objects") are >>>> themselves nouns. >>>> >>> Umm... May I make a little correction here? >>> Adjectives are not nouns. They are used to /describe/ nouns. >>> -JJR >>> >> Maybe there's examples I'm not thinking of, and I'm certainly no >> natural language expert, but consider these: >> >> "red" >> "ball" >> "red ball" >> By themselves, "red" and "ball" are both nouns. Stick the noun "red" >> in front of ball and "red" becomes an adjectve. (FWIW, >> "dictionary.reference.com" lists "red" as both a noun and an >> adjective). The only adjectives I can think of at the moment (in my >> admittedly quite tired state) are words that are ordinarly nouns on >> their own. I would think that the distinguishing charactaristic of an >> adjective vs noun would be the context in which it's used. >> >> Maybe I am mixed up though, it's not really an area of expertise for >> me. >> > > > No problem. I am not saying a word can't be /used/ as an adjective and > noun in different contexts. I'm just saying that they can't be an > adjective and noun at the same time as your first post suggested. > > Grammatically, adjectives are not nouns (ever), even if the words > themselves can be used as either in independent contexts; they just modify > nouns. Like Jarett mentions, the fact that words that are adjectives in > one context can shapeshift to another part of speech (the noun) in > another, is immaterial to the definition: you just have to recognize when > it happens and realize the change that has occurred in the part of speech. >
I guess that's a difference between natural languages and oop-languages then. A member variable of an object typically /describes an attribute/ of the object, and thus makes it comparable to the notion of "adjective", but in an oop-language (and apperently unlike a natural language) that member object is itself either another object or a primitive. > It something like how D uses the "!" prefix to instantiate a template and > in another context uses it as a logical NOT. They can't mean both at the > same time. They mean something different depending on where they are > used. > Ok, I see what you're saying.
