Contentss

Part 1

The find of nouns The find of nouns

1. Introduction

2. Categorization of nouns in English

3. Nouns and pronouns

Part 2 Part 2
Semantic vs. grammatical figure Semantic vs. grammatical figure

1. Number in specific linguistic communications

2. Obligatoriness of figure marker

3. Number understanding

4. Types of figure

5. Decision

Part 3 Part 3

Bibliography

The find of nouns

Introduction

The word “ noun ” comes from the Latin nomen intending “ name. ” Word classes like nouns were foremost described by Sanskrit grammarian P & # 257 ; & # 7751 ; ini and ancient Greeks like Dionysios Thrax, and defined in footings of their morphological belongingss. For illustration, in Ancient Greek, nouns can be inflected for grammatical instance, such as dative or accusatory. Verbs, on the other manus, can be inflected for tenses, such as past, present or future, while nouns can non. Aristotle besides had a impression of onomata ( nouns ) and rhemata ( verbs ) which, nevertheless, does non precisely match our impressions of verbs and nouns. In her thesis, Vinokurova has a more elaborate treatment of the historical beginning of the impression of a noun.

Different definitions of nouns Different definitions of nouns
Expressions of natural linguistic communication will hold belongingss at different degrees. They have formal belongingss, like what sorts of morphological prefixes or postfixs they can take, and what sorts of other looks they can unite with. but they besides have semantic belongingss, i.e. belongingss refering to their significance. The definition of nouns on the top of this page is therefore a formal definition. That definition is noncontroversial, and has the advantage that it allows us to efficaciously separate nouns from non-nouns. However, it has the disadvandage that it does non use to nouns in all linguistic communications. For illustration in Russian, there are no definite articles, so one can non specify nouns by agencies of those. There are besides several efforts of specifying nouns in footings of their semantic belongingss. Many of these are controversial, but some are discussed below. Expressions of natural linguistic communication will hold belongingss at different degrees. They have formal belongingss, like what sorts of morphological prefixes or postfixs they can take, and what sorts of other looks they can unite with. but they besides have semantic belongingss, i.e. belongingss refering to their significance. The definition of nouns on the top of this page is therefore a formal definition. That definition is noncontroversial, and has the advantage that it allows us to efficaciously separate nouns from non-nouns. However, it has the disadvandage that it does non use to nouns in all linguistic communications. For illustration in Russian, there are no definite articles, so one can non specify nouns by agencies of those. There are besides several efforts of specifying nouns in footings of their semantic belongingss. Many of these are controversial, but some are discussed below.
Name callings for things Names for things

In traditional school grammars, one frequently encounters the definition of nouns that they are all and merely those looks that refer to a individual, topographic point, thing, event, substance, quality, or thought, etc. This is a semantic definition. It has been criticized by modern-day linguists as being rather uninformative. Part of the job is that the definition makes usage of comparatively general nouns ( “ thing, ” “ phenomenon, ” “ event ” ) to specify what nouns are. The being of such general nouns shows us that nouns are organized in systematic hierarchies. But other sorts of looks are besides organized in hierarchies. For illustration all of the verbs “ amble, ” “ saunter, ” “ pace, ” and “ pace ” are more specific words than the more general “ walk. ” The latter is more specific than the verb “ move. ” But it is improbable that such hierarchies can be used to specify nouns and verbs. Furthermore, an influential theory has it that verbs like “ kill ” or “ die ” refer to events, [ 2 ] [ 3 ] and so they fall under the definition. Similarly, adjectives like “ xanthous ” or “ hard ” might be thought to mention to qualities, and adverbs like “ outside ” or “ upstairs ” seem to mention to topographic points. Worse still, a trip into the forests can be referred to by the verbs “ amble ” or “ walk. ” But verbs, adjectives and adverbs are non nouns, and nouns are n’t verbs. So the definition is non peculiarly helpful in separating nouns from other parts of address.

Prototypically referential looks Prototypically referential looks

Another semantic definition of nouns is that they are prototypically referential. [ 4 ] That definition is besides non really helpful in separating existent nouns from verbs. But it may still correctly place a nucleus belongings of nounhood. For illustration, we will be given to utilize nouns like “ sap ” and “ auto ” when we wish to mention to saps and autos, severally. The impression that this is prototypocal reflects the fact that such nouns can be used, even though nil with the corresponding belongings is referred to:

John is no sap.

If I had a auto, I ‘d travel to Marakech.

The first sentence above does n’t mention to any saps, nor does the 2nd one refer to any peculiar auto.

Predicates with individuality standards Predicates with individuality standards

The British logician Peter Thomas Geach proposed a really elusive semantic definition of nouns. He noticed that adjectives like “ same ” can modify nouns, but no other sorts of parts of address, like verbs or adjectives. Not merely that, but at that place besides does n’t look to be any other
looks with similar significance that can modify verbs and adjectives. See the undermentioned illustrations.

Good: John and Bill participated in thesame
battle.

Bad: *John and Billsamely
fought.

There is no English adverb “ samely. ” In some other linguistic communications, like Czech, nevertheless there are adverbs matching to “ samely. ” Hence, in Czech, the interlingual rendition of the last sentence would be all right ; nevertheless, it would intend that John and Bill fought in the same manner
: non that they participated in the same battle
. Geach proposed that we could explicate this, if nouns denote logical predicate withindividuality standards
. An individuality standard would let us to reason, for illustration, that “ individual ten at clip 1 is the same individual
as individual Y at clip 2. ” Different nouns can hold different individuality standards. A good known illustration of this is due to Gupta:

National Airlines transported 2 millionriders
in 1979.

National Airlines transported ( at least ) 2 millionindividuals
in 1979.

Given that, in general, all riders are individuals, the last sentence above ought to follow logically from the first 1. But it does n’t. It is easy to conceive of, for illustration, that on norm, every individual who travelled with National Airlines in 1979, travelled with them twice. In that instance, one would state that the air hose transported 2 million riders
but merely 1 million individuals
. Therefore, the manner that we count riders
is n’t needfully the same as the manner that we count individuals
. Put slightly otherwise: At two different times, you may match to two distinguishable riders
, even though you are one and the same individual. For a precise definition of individuality standards
, see Gupta.

Recently, the linguist Mark Baker has proposed that Geach ‘s definition of nouns in footings of individuality standards allows us to explicate
the characteristic belongingss of nouns. He argues that nouns can coincide with ( in- ) definite articles and numbers, and are “ prototypically referential ” because
they are all and merely those parts of address that provide individuality standards. Baker ‘s proposals are rather new, and linguists are still measuring them.

Categorization of nouns in English Classification of nouns in English
Proper nouns and common nouns Proper nouns and common nouns

Proper nouns ( besides called proper names ) are the names of alone entities. For illustration, “ Janet ” , “ Jupiter ” and “ Germany ” are proper nouns. Proper nouns are normally capitalized in English and most other linguistic communications that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy manner to recognize them. However, in German nouns of all types are capitalized. The convention of capitalising all nouns was antecedently used in English, but has long fallen into neglect.

All other nouns are called common nouns. For illustration, “ miss ” , “ planet ” , and “ state ” are common nouns.

Sometimes the same word can work as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is particular. For illustration: “ There can be many Gods, but there is merely one God. ” This is slightly magnified in Hebrew where EL means God ( as in a God ) , God ( as in the God ) , and El ( the name of a peculiar Canaanite God ) .

The common significance of the word or words representing a proper noun may be unrelated to the object to which the proper noun refers. For illustration, person might be named “ Tiger Smith ” despite being neither a tiger nor a Smith. For this ground, proper nouns are normally non translated between linguistic communications, although they may be transliterated. For illustration, the German family name Kn & # 246 ; del becomes Knodel or Knoedel in English ( non the actual Dumpling ) . However, the interlingual rendition of placenames and the names of sovereign, Catholic Popes, and non-contemporary writers is common and sometimes cosmopolitan. For case, the Portuguese word Lisboa becomes Lisbon in English ; the English London becomes Londres in French ; and the Greek Aristotel & # 275 ; s becomes Aristotle in English.

Count nouns and mass nouns Count nouns and mass nouns

Count nouns
( or denumerable nouns
) are common nouns that can take a plural, can unite with numbers or quantifiers ( e.g. “ one ” , “ two ” , “ several ” , “ every ” , “ most ” ) , and can take an indefinite article ( “ a ” or “ an ” ) . Examples of count nouns are “ chair ” , “ nose ” , and “ juncture ” .

Mass nouns
( or non-countable nouns
) differ from count nouns in exactly that regard: they ca n’t take plural or combine with figure words or quantifiers. Examples from English include “ laughter ” , “ cutter ” , “ He ” , and “ furniture ” . For illustration, it is non possible to mention to “ a furniture ” or “ three furnitures ” . This is true, even though the furniture referred to could, in rule, be counted. Thus the differentiation between mass and count nouns should n’t be made in footings of what kinds of things the nouns refer
to, but instead in footings of how the nouns nowadays
these entities. The separate page for mass noun contains farther account of this point.

Some words map in the singular as a count noun and, without a alteration in the spelling, as a mass noun in the plural: she caught a fish
, we caught fish
; he shot a cervid
, they shot some cervid ; the trade was dilapidated, the wharf was chockablock with trade.

Corporate Nouns Collective Nouns

Corporate nouns are nouns that refer to groups dwelling of more than one person or entity, even when they are inflected for the singular. Examples include “ commission, ” “ herd ” and “ school ” ( of herring ) . These nouns have somewhat different grammatical belongingss than other nouns. For illustration, the noun phrases that they head can function of the topic of a corporate predicate, even when they are inflected for the singular. A corporate predicate is a predicate that usually ca n’t take a remarkable topic. An illustration of the latter is “ surround the house. ”

Good: The male childs surrounded the house.

Bad: *The male child surrounded the house.

Good: The commission surrounded the house.

Concrete nouns and abstract nouns Concrete nouns and abstract nouns

Concrete nouns refer to definite objects & # 8212 ; objects in which you use at least one of your senses. For case, “ chair ” , “ apple ” , or “ Janet ” . Abstract nouns on the other manus refer to thoughts or constructs, such as “ justness ” or “ hatred ” . While this differentiation is sometimes utile, the boundary between the two of them is non ever clear. In English, many abstract nouns are formed by adding noun-forming postfixs ( “ -ness ” , “ -ity ” , “ -tion ” ) to adjectives or verbs. Examples are “ happiness ” , “ circulation ” and “ repose ” .

Nouns and pronouns Nouns and pronouns

Noun phrases can be replaced by pronouns, such as “ he ” , “ it ” , “ which ” , and “ those ” , in order to avoid repeat or expressed designation, or for other grounds. For illustration, in the sentence “ Janet thought that he was eldritch ” , the word “ he ” is a pronoun standing in topographic point of the name of the individual in inquiry. The English word one can replace parts of noun phrases, and it sometimes stands in for a noun. An illustration is given below:

John ‘s auto is newer than the 1 that Bill has.

But one can besides stand in for bigger subparts of a noun phrase. For illustration, in the undermentioned illustration, one can stand in for new auto.

This new auto is cheaper than that one.

List

CHAIR PAPER BOOK CAKE DRINK CANDY CAKE FUDGE SISSORS KEY BOARD SPEAKERS CAR BIKE PENCIL PEN

In linguistics, grammatical figure is a morphological class characterized by the look of measure through inflexion or understanding. As an illustration, see the English sentences below:

That apple on the tabular array is fresh.

Those two apples on the tabular array are fresh.

The figure of apples is marked on the noun & # 8212 ; “ apple ” , remarkable figure ( one point ) vs. “ apples ” , plural figure ( more than one point ) & # 8212 ; , on the demonstrative, “ that/those ” , and on the verb, “ is/are ” . Note that, particularly in the 2nd sentence, this information can be considered excess, since measure is already indicated by the numerical “ two ” .

A linguistic communication has grammatical figure when its nouns are subdivided into morphological categories harmonizing to the measure they express, such that:

Every noun belongs to a individual figure category. ( Number dividers nouns into disjoint categories. )

Noun qualifiers ( such as adjectives ) and verbs have different signifiers for each figure category, and must be inflected to fit the figure of the nouns they refer to. ( Number is an understanding class. )

This is the instance in English: every noun is either remarkable or plural ( a few, such as “ fish ” , can be either, harmonizing to context ) , and at least some qualifiers of nouns & # 8212 ; viz. the demonstratives, the personal pronouns, the articles, and verbs & # 8212 ; are inflected to hold with the figure of the nouns they refer to: “ this auto ” and “ these autos ” are right, while “ *this autos ” or “ *these auto ” are ill-formed.

Not all linguistic communications have figure as a grammatical class. In those that do non, measure must be expressed either straight, with numbers, or indirectly, through optional quantifiers. However, many of these linguistic communications compensate for the deficiency of grammatical figure with an extended system of step words.

The word “ figure ” is besides used in linguistics to depict the differentiation between certain grammatical facets that indicate the figure of times an event occurs, such as the semelfactive facet, the iterative facet, etc. For that usage of the term, see “ Grammatical facet ” .

Semantic vs. grammatical figure Semantic vs. grammatical figure

All linguistic communications are able to stipulate the measure of referents. They may make so by lexical agencies with words such as English a few
, some
, one
, two
, five hundred
. However, non every linguistic communication has a grammatical class of figure. Grammatical figure is expressed by morphological and/or syntactic agencies. That is, it is indicated by certain grammatical elemen

T, such as through affixes or figure words. Grammatical figure may be thought of as the indicant of semantic figure through grammar.

Languages that express measure merely by lexical agencies lack a grammatical class of figure. For case, in Khmer, neither nouns nor verbs carry any grammatical information refering figure: such information can merely be conveyed by lexical points such as khlah
‘some ‘ , pii-bey
‘a few ‘ , and so on.

Most linguistic communications of the universe have formal agencies to show differences of figure. The most widespread differentiation, as found in English and many other linguistic communications, involves a simple bipartisan figure contrast between remarkable and plural ( auto
/ autos
; kid
/ kids
, etc. ) . Other more luxuriant systems of figure are described below.

Number in specific linguistic communications Number in specific linguistic communications
English English

English is typical of most universe linguistic communications, in separating merely between remarkable and plural figure. The plural signifier of a word is normally created by adding the postfix – ( vitamin E ) s
. Common exclusions include the pronouns, which have irregular plurals, as in I
versus we
, because they are ancient and often used words.

Gallic Gallic

In its written signifier, Gallic diminutions nouns for figure ( remarkable or plural ) . In address, nevertheless, the bulk of nouns ( and adjectives ) are non really declined for figure. This is because the typical plural postfix -s
, is soundless, and therefore does non truly bespeak a alteration in pronunciation ; the plural article or clincher is the existent index of plurality ( but see Liaison
( Gallic ) for a common exclusion ) . However, plural figure still exists in spoken Gallic because a important per centum of irregular plurals differ from the singular in pronunciation ; for illustration, cheval
“ Equus caballus ” is pronounced [ & # 643 ; & # 601 ; val ] , while chevaux
“ Equus caballuss ” is pronounced [ & # 643 ; & # 601 ; vo ] .

Hebrew Hebrew

In Hebrew, most nouns have merely remarkable and plural signifiers, such as sefer/sfarim
“ book/books ” , but some have remarkable, plural, and double signifiers, such as yom/yomaim/yamim
“ day/two days/ [ two or more ] yearss ” . Some words occur so frequently in braces that what used to be the double signifier is now the general plural, such as ayin/eynayim
“ eye/eyes ” , used even in a sentence like, “ The spider has eight eyes. ” Adjectives, verbs, and pronouns have merely remarkable and plural, with the plural signifiers of these being used with double nouns.

Obligatoriness of figure taging Obligatoriness of figure marker

In many linguistic communications, such as English, figure is obligatorily expressed in every grammatical context ; in other linguistic communications, nevertheless, figure look is limited to certain categories of nouns, such as animates or referentially outstanding nouns ( as with proximate signifiers in most Algonkian linguistic communications, opposed to referentially less outstanding obviative signifiers ) .

A really common state of affairs is for plural figure to non be marked if there is any other open indicant of figure, as for illustration in Magyar: vir & # 225 ; g “ flower ” ; vir & # 225 ; gok “ flowers ” ; hat vir & # 225 ; g “ six flowers ” .

Number understanding Number understanding
Verb junction Verb junction

In many linguistic communications, verbs are conjugated for figure. Using Gallic as an illustration, one says je vois ( I see ) , but nous voyons ( we see ) . The verb voir ( to see ) alterations from vois in the first individual remarkable to voyons in the plural. In mundane English, this frequently happens in the 3rd individual ( she sees, they see ) , but non in other grammatical individuals, except with the verb to be.

Agreement in other lexical points Agreement in other lexical points

Adjectives frequently agree with the figure of the noun they modify. For illustration, in French, one says un expansive arbre [ & # 339 ; & # 771 ; g & # 640 ; & # 593 ; & # 771 ; t a & # 640 ; B & # 640 ; ] “ a tall tree ” , but deux thousands arbres [ d & # 248 ; g & # 640 ; & # 593 ; & # 771 ; z a & # 640 ; B & # 640 ; ] “ two tall trees ” . The remarkable adjectival expansive becomes thousands in the plural, unlike English “ tall ” , which remains unchanged.

Other clinchers may hold with figure. In English, the demonstratives “ this ” , “ that ” alteration to “ these ” , “ those ” in the plural, and the indefinite article “ a ” , “ an ” is either omitted or alterations to “ some ” . In Gallic and German, the definite articles have gender differentiations in the singular but non the plural. In Spanish and Lusitanian, both definite and indefinite articles are inflected for gender and figure, e.g. Lusitanian O, a “ the ” ( remarkable, masc./fem. ) , os, as “ the ” ( plural, masc./fem. ) ; um, uma “ a ( N ) ” ( remarkable, masc./fem. ) , uns, umas “ some ” ( plural, masc./fem. )

In the Finnish sentence Y & # 246 ; T ovat pimeit & # 228 ; “ Nights are dark ” , each word mentioning to the plural noun y & # 246 ; T “ darks ” ( “ dark ” = y & # 246 ; ) is pluralized ( night-PL is-PL dark-PL-partitive ) .

Exceptions Exceptions

Sometimes, grammatical figure will non stand for the existent measure. For illustration, in Ancient Greek neuter plurals took a remarkable verb. The plural signifier of a pronoun may besides be applied to a individual person as a mark of importance, regard or generalization, as in the pluralis majestatis
, the T-V differentiation, and the generic “ you ” , found in many linguistic communications, or, in English, when utilizing the remarkable “ they ” for gender-neutrality.

Corporate nouns Collective nouns

A corporate noun is a word that designates a group of objects or existences regarded as a whole, such as “ flock ” , “ squad ” , or “ corporation ” . Although many linguistic communications treat corporate nouns as remarkable, in others they may be interpreted as plural. In British English, phrases such as the commission are run intoing
are common ( the alleged understanding in sensu
“ in significance ” , that is, with the significance of a noun, instead than with its signifier ) . The usage of this type of building varies with idiom and degree of formality.

Types of figure Types of figure
Remarkable versus plural Singular versus plural

In most linguistic communications with grammatical figure, nouns, and sometimes other parts of address, have two signifiers, the singular, for one case of a construct, and the plural, for more than one case. Normally, the singular is the unmarked signifier of a word, and the plural is obtained by inflecting the singular. This is the instance in English: car/cars, box/boxes, man/men. There may be exceeding nouns whose plural is indistinguishable to the singular: one fish / two fish.

Corporate versus singulative Collective versus singulative

Some linguistic communications differentiate between a basic signifier, the collective, which is apathetic in regard to figure, and a more complicated derived signifier for individual entities, the singulative, for illustration Japanese and some Brythonic linguistic communications. A unsmooth illustration in English is “ snowflake ” , which may be considered a singulative signifier of “ snow ” ( although English has no productive procedure of organizing singulative nouns, and no singulative qualifiers ) . In other linguistic communications, singulatives can be fruitfully formed from corporate nouns ; e.g. Standard Arabic & # 1581 ; & # 1580 ; & # 1585 ; & # 7717 ; ajar “ rock ” & # 8594 ; & # 1581 ; & # 1580 ; & # 1585 ; & # 1577 ; & # 7717 ; ajar & # 257 ; “ ( single ) rock ” , & # 1576 ; & # 1602 ; & # 1585 ; baqar “ cowss ” & # 8594 ; & # 1576 ; & # 1602 ; & # 1585 ; & # 1577 ; baqar & # 257 ; “ ( individual ) cow ”

Double figure Dual figure

The differentiation between a “ remarkable ” figure ( one ) and a “ plural ” figure ( more than one ) found in English is non the lone possible categorization. Another one is “ remarkable ” ( one ) , “ double ” ( two ) and “ plural ” ( more than two ) . Double figure existed in Proto-Indo-European, persisted in many of the now nonextant ancient Indo-germanic linguistic communications that descended from it & # 8212 ; Sanskrit, Ancient Greek and Gothic for illustration & # 8212 ; and can still be found in a few modern Indo-germanic linguistic communications such as Icelandic and Slovene linguistic communication. Many more modern Indo-germanic linguistic communications show residuary hints of the double, as in the English differentiations both versus all and better versus best.

Many Semitic linguistic communications besides have double figure.

Trial figure Trial figure

The test figure is a grammatical figure mentioning to ‘three points ‘ , in contrast to ‘singular ‘ ( one point ) , ‘dual ‘ ( two points ) , and ‘plural ‘ ( four or more points ) . Tolomako, Lihir and Tok Pisin ( though merely in its pronouns ) have test figure.

There is a hierarchy between figure classs: No linguistic communication distinguishes a test unless holding a double, and no linguistic communication has dual without a plural ( Greenberg 1972 ) .

Some linguistic communications, such as Latvian, have a nullar signifier, used for nouns that refer to zero points. Other linguistic communications use either the singular or the plural signifier for nothing. English, along with the other Germanic linguistic communications and most Romance linguistic communications, uses the plural. Gallic usually uses the remarkable, alternatively.

Distributive plural Distributive plural

Distributive plural figure, for many cases viewed as independent persons ( e.g. in Navajo ) .

In most linguistic communications, the singular is officially unmarked, whereas the plural is marked in some manner. Other linguistic communications, most notably the Bantu linguistic communications, grade both the singular and the plural, for case Swahili ( see illustration above ) . The 3rd logical possibility, seldom found in linguistic communications, is unmarked plural contrasting with pronounced singular.

Elementss taging figure may look on nouns and pronouns in dependent-marking linguistic communications or on verbs and adjectives in head-marking linguistic communications.

English ( dependent-marking )	Western Apache ( head-marking )
Paul is learning the cowpuncher.	Paul idiloh & # 237 ; yi & # 322 ; ch & # 8217 ; & # 237 ; g & # 243 ; & # 8217 ; aah.
Paul is learning the cowpunchers .	Paul idiloh & # 237 ; yi & # 322 ; ch & # 8217 ; & # 237 ;district attorney g & # 243 ; & # 8217 ; aah.

In the English sentence above, the plural postfix -s
is added to the noun cowpuncher
. In the Western Apache, a head-marking linguistic communication, tantamount, a plural prefix da-
is added to the verb yi & # 322 ; ch & # 8217 ; & # 237 ; g & # 243 ; & # 8217 ; aah
“ he is learning him ” , ensuing in yi & # 322 ; ch & # 8217 ; & # 237 ; dekagram & # 243 ; & # 8217 ; aah
“ he is learning them ” while noun idiloh & # 237 ;
“ cowpuncher ” is unmarked for figure.

Number atoms Number atoms

Plurality is sometimes marked by a specialised figure atom ( or figure word ) . This is frequent in Australian and Austronesian linguistic communications. An illustration from Tagalog is the word mga
: comparison bahay
“ house ” with mga bahay
“ houses ” . In Kapampangan, certain nouns optionally denote plurality by secondary emphasis: ing lal & # 225 ; qi
“ adult male ” and ing bab & # 225 ; I
“ adult female ” become donging fifty & # 225 ; cubic decimeter & # 225 ; qi
“ work forces ” and donging B & # 225 ; B & # 225 ; I
“ adult females ” .

Conclusion Conclusion
We have investigated the noun, the chief portion of address in English grammar. We chose the noun as the subject of our class work because we interested in it. We used different sort of mentions to look into the noun. Nouns can be classified farther as count nouns, which name anything that can be counted ( four books, two continents, a few dishes, a twelve edifices ) ; mass nouns ( or non-count nouns ) , which name something that ca n’t be counted ( H2O, air, energy, blood ) ; and corporate nouns, which can take a remarkable signifier but are composed of more than one single individual or points ( jury, squad, category, commission, herd ) . We should observe that some words can be either a count noun or a non-count noun depending on how they ‘re being used in a sentence. Whether or non a noun is uncountable is determined by its significance: an uncountable noun represents something which tends to be viewed as a whole or as a individual entity, instead than as one of a figure of points which can be counted as single units. Remarkable verb signifiers are used with uncountable nouns. Uncountable nouns are substances, constructs etc that we can non split into separate elements. We can non “ count ” them. For illustration, we can non number “ milk ” . We can number “ bottles of milk ” or “ liters of milk ” , but we can non number “ milk ” itself.We normally treat uncountable nouns as remarkable. We use a remarkable verb. Countable nouns are easy to acknowledge. They are things that we can number. For illustration: “ write ” . We can number pens. We can hold one, two, three or more pens.We can non state that it is finished probe of this subject, because we are traveling to go on its probe in our sheepskin work. We have investigated the noun, the chief portion of address in English grammar. We chose the noun as the subject of our class work because we interested in it. We used different sort of mentions to look into the noun. Nouns can be classified farther as count nouns, which name anything that can be counted ( four books, two continents, a few dishes, a twelve edifices ) ; mass nouns ( or non-count nouns ) , which name something that ca n’t be counted ( H2O, air, energy, blood ) ; and corporate nouns, which can take a remarkable signifier but are composed of more than one single individual or points ( jury, squad, category, commission, herd ) . We should observe that some words can be either a count noun or a non-count noun depending on how they ‘re being used in a sentence. Whether or non a noun is uncountable is determined by its significance: an uncountable noun represents something which tends to be viewed as a whole or as a individual entity, instead than as one of a figure of points which can be counted as single units. Remarkable verb signifiers are used with uncountable nouns. Uncountable nouns are substances, constructs etc that we can non split into separate elements. We can non “ count ” them. For illustration, we can non number “ milk ” . We can number “ bottles of milk ” or “ liters of milk ” , but we can non number “ milk ” itself.We normally treat uncountable nouns as remarkable. We use a remarkable verb. Countable nouns are easy to acknowledge. They are things that we can number. For illustration: “ write ” . We can number pens. We can hold one, two, three or more pens.We can non state that it is finished probe of this subject, because we are traveling to go on its probe in our sheepskin work.
Bibliography Bibliography

& # 183 ; Beard, R. ( 1992 ) Number. In W. Bright ( ed. ) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics
.

& # 183 ; Corbett, G. ( 2000 ) . Number
. Cambridge University Press.

& # 183 ; Greenberg, Joseph H. ( 1972 ) Numeral classifiers and substantival figure: Problems in the generation of a lingual type. Working Documents on Language Universals
( Stanford University ) 9. 1-39.

& # 183 ; Laycock, Henry. ( 2005 ) ‘Mass nouns, Count nouns and Non-count nouns ‘ Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics
. Oxford: Elsevier.

& # 183 ; Laycock, Henry. ( 2006 ) Wordss without Objects
. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

& # 183 ; Merrifield, William ( 1959 ) . Categorization of Kiowa nouns. International Journal of American Linguistics
, 25
, 269-271.

& # 183 ; Mithun, Marianne ( 1999 ) . The linguistic communications of native North America
( pp. 81-82, 444-445 ) . Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23228-7.

& # 183 ; Sprott, Robert ( 1992 ) . Jemez sentence structure. ( Doctoral thesis, University of Chicago, USA ) .

& # 183 ; Sten, Holgar ( 1949 ) Le nombre grammatical
. ( Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 4. ) Kobenhavn: Munksgaard.

& # 183 ; Watkins, Laurel J. ; & A ; McKenzie, Parker. ( 1984 ) . A grammar of Kiowa
. Surveies in the anthropology of North American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-4727-3.

& # 183 ; Weigel, William F. ( 1993 ) . Morphosyntactic toggles. Documents from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
( Vol. 29, pp. 467-478 ) . Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

& # 183 ; Wiese, Heike ( 2003 ) . Numbers, linguistic communication, and the human head
. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-83182-2.

& # 183 ; Wonderly, Gibson, and Kirk ( 1954 ) . Number in Kiowa: Nouns, demonstratives, and adjectives. International Journal of American Linguistics
, 20
, 1-7.

& # 183 ; Vinokurova, Nadezhda. 2005. [ 1 ] Lexical classs and argument construction: a survey with mention to Sakha. ] Ph.D. Dis. University of Utrecht.

& # 183 ; Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical signifier of action sentences. In Nicholas Rescher, ed. , The Logic of Decision and Action, Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh Press.

& # 183 ; Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a survey in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Imperativeness

& # 183 ; Croft, William. 1993. “ A noun is a noun is a noun – or is it? Some contemplations on the catholicity of semantics. ” Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, erectile dysfunction. Joshua S. Guenter, Barbara A. Kaiser and Cheryl C. Zoll, 369-80. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.