Quoting Tristan McLeay <[log in to unmask]>:

> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> >
> >>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:45:08 -0500, Henrik Theiling
> >><[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The dictionary entries cited above quite obviously use quite a
> >>>different view on adjectives as I do here.  I'd like to know what the
> >>>system is behind their classification.  Do they define the terms?  Can
> >>>anyone help?  Is the above common-sense or English intuition?  Why?
> >>
> >>The pan-linguistic definition of an adjective pretty much seems to be
> >>"anything that is not clearly any other part of speech". I think I
> >>recall  Comrie giving that definition in _Language Universals and
> >>Linguistic  Typology_, but I may be wrong.
> >
> >
> > Aha, so quite plainly matching the Lat. translation of 'adjicere':
> > 'ad' + 'jacere'?  'to throw at'? :-)  To throw the word in question at
> > just about anything?
> >
> > Unsatisfied, I understand. :-)
>
> Actually, I thought that was what "adverbs" were, whereas adjectives
> must modify noun phrases.
>
> e.g.
>   Can I have some more, please? "Please" is an adverb.
>   The ducks headed bush. "Bush" is an adverb. {*}
>   This is not the sort of thing that I'll put up with. "up" and "with"
> are adverbs.

In the equivalent Swedish sentence*, "up" would be considered a verbal particle
and "with" a preposition, according to what they taught us in school. Yet, I
think it's clear they're doing the same thing in both languages. I suppose I'm
not surprising anyone if I say I think the analysis I was taught makes a great
deal more sense ...


* You'd say something like _Detta är inte ngt jag tänker stå ut med_, where _stå
ut_ means "put up" (but is lit. "stand out"!) and _med_ "with".