Подряд идущие существительные

[M_K]

Англо-русский словарь:
gyred - скрученный.

And what is your point?

В сегодняшней Америке это слово пишется: gyrated

Gyre и Gyrate - разные слова. Хотя первое, согласен, несколько устарело.

[Pink Monkey]

Especially for you - the link I gave already:
http://www.langust.ru/hornby/hornby.shtml

I am not so over-confident to set my own definition of smth. up.

Well, here's what I found in your book:

>> Все другие части речи, которые могут выступать в качестве определения к существительному (существительные, причастия, герундии, наречия), различные словосочетания, имеющие функцию определения (например, предложные и инфинитивные обороты), и придаточные определительные предложения, мы называем эквивалентами прилагательных (Adjective Equivalents)<<

How is that different from what I was saying in my post ? I just used NOUN MODIFIER instead of ADJECTIVE EQUIVALENT.

But what you keep saying is that they are nouns. That's why I was asking for your definition of a noun. Clearly, an Adjective Equivalent cannot be a full noun, because it does not have the same syntactical role.

[Pink Monkey]

Also, could you tell how you determine which noun is the head? Thanks.

The last sentence - I just do not understand what do you mean.

Since you keep maintaining that in "brick wall" both "brick" and "wall" are nouns, my question was: How do you establish the dependence relationship between the two? In other words, which is the main word, the headword - "brick" or "wall"? And why?

[thinker]

Англо-русский словарь:
gyred - скрученный.

And what is your point?

В сегодняшней Америке это слово пишется: gyrated

Gyre и Gyrate - разные слова. Хотя первое, согласен, несколько устарело.

Кстати в моём американском толовом словаре есть оба эти слова (Gyre и Gyrate ). Но нет слова Gyred, о котором тут речь идет. Вероятно оно еще старее или чисто британское.

[Pink Monkey]

Англо-русский словарь:
gyred - скрученный.

And what is your point?

My point is that in the sentence:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

Jabberwocky's "gyre" is not the same word as "gyre" you found in the dictionary, although Carroll most probably derived it from its Greek or Latin meaning .

>> "The new words, in the poem "Jabberwocky", have given rise to some differences of opinion as to their pronunciation:so it may be well to give instructions on that point also. Pronounce "slithy" as if it were the two words "sly, the": and make the "g" hard in "gyre" and "gimble: and pronounce "rath" to rhyme with "bath".

Lewis Carroll in the preface to the 1896 edition of "Through The Looking Glass".<<
Source: http://www.alice-in-wonderland.fsnet.co.uk/poem_2.htm

Humpty-Dumpty explains the meaning of Jabberwocky:

>>`Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. `I can explain all the poems that were ever invented -- and a good many that haven't been invented just yet.'

This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse:


`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

`That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: `there are plenty of hard words there. "Brillig" means four o'clock in the afternoon -- the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.'
`That'll do very well,' said Alice: and "slithy"?'

`Well, "slithy" means "lithe and slimy." "Lithe" is the same as "active." You see it's like a portmanteau -- there are two meanings packed up into one word.'

`I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: `and what are "toves"?'

`Well, "toves" are something like badgers -- they're something like lizards -- and they're something like corkscrews.'

`They must be very curious looking creatures.'

`They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: `also they make their nests under sun-dials -- also they live on cheese.'

`Andy what's the "gyre" and to "gimble"?'

`To "gyre" is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To "gimble" is to make holes like a gimblet.' <<
Source: http://www.literature.org/authors/carro ... ing-glass/

[M_K]

Well, here's what I found in your book:

>> Все другие части речи, которые могут выступать в качестве определения к существительному (существительные, причастия, герундии, наречия), различные словосочетания, имеющие функцию определения (например, предложные и инфинитивные обороты), и придаточные определительные предложения, мы называем эквивалентами прилагательных (Adjective Equivalents)<<

How is that different from what I was saying in my post ? I just used NOUN MODIFIER instead of ADJECTIVE EQUIVALENT.

But what you keep saying is that they are nouns. That's why I was asking for your definition of a noun. Clearly, an Adjective Equivalent cannot be a full noun, because it does not have the same syntactical role.

1.
I suggest you however read more thoroughly, do not take single sentence out from the context. There are many detailed explanations, examples, etc.
Else it looks like you are only searching for known words.

The difference is that equivalent of smth. != smth. itself. Corundum and 'феанит' (sorry, translation is unknown) are diamond equivalent. But not the diamonds.

That adjective equivalent still remains the noun, while you named it a pure adjective. That is not not true, fill the difference: gold souk but golden ring. If these were both nouns ones shall be interchangeable because mean the same ang have the same syntactical role. However it isn't.
We also can always change an order of nouns using particle 'of'. While meaning may be not the same it is still grammatically correct: "souk of gold". But: "ring of golden"... - oops, what is it?
Thus noun modifier - OK, ajective equivalent - OK, but not adjective itself.

Moreover.
If you insist the noun, verb and adjective are indication of syntactical role then we should suppose a global mistranslation - ones shall be definitely translated in russian as подлежащее, сказуемое и второстепенные члены предложения, isn't it?


2.
You are so kindly to quote a lot from Carroll's tale but I do not see how it can helps in our theorization. I said, the fact of that I found a translation for one word means nothing, i.e. might be casual coincidence.

[M_K]

Almost missed...

Since you keep maintaining that in "brick wall" both "brick" and "wall" are nouns, my question was: How do you establish the dependence relationship between the two? In other words, which is the main word, the headword - "brick" or "wall"? And why?

Here you gave a perfect illustration of making upside down.
You are trying to define a word property based on disposition within a sentence. While the right way is quite the countrariy: to build a sentence having a knowledge where the word is good to be placed.

[Pink Monkey]

That adjective equivalent still remains the noun, while you named it a pure adjective.

I never did say "pure adjective". You must have me confused with someone else. All I said, was "adjective in _traditional grammar terms_".

Thus noun modifier - OK, ajective equivalent - OK, but not adjective itself.

I'm glad you finally agree with Mr. Hornby's and mine explanation.

That is not not true, fill the difference: gold souk but golden ring. If these were both nouns ones shall be interchangeable because mean the same ang have the same syntactical role. However it isn't.

Huh? "Gold" and "golden" are not both nouns. And they are not both adjectives. And even though in expressions "gold souk" and "golden ring" they both fill an adjectival position, it's not even the same position. I gave you a link in one of my postings, you can take a look and see for youself. There's no position between NOUN MODIFIER and HEAD ("gold souk"), but there's at least one position empty between "Golden" and "ring", which can be filled by a NOUN MODIFIER, e.g. "golden wedding ring".

Moreover.
If you insist the noun, verb and adjective are indication of syntactical role then we should suppose a global mistranslation - ones shall be definitely translated in russian as подлежащее, сказуемое и второстепенные члены предложения, isn't it?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say Especially the part about "global mistranslation" . Where did I _insist_ that "noun, verb and adjective are indication of syntactical role"? I don't even understand what "noun as an indication of syntactical role" means.

[M_K]

Listen, it seems like you don't know what do you whant to say.

Do you remember what did you start from? You said: "a mistake". What a mistake? Don't be shaddy, point by finger.

But instead you layed out a mud like: "this is not what I said, I said not what I mean, what you see is someting else and I do not understand that I have written". I.e. you do explain nothing but your "grammatical narcissism".

Then please be so kind do not longer ascribe the fruits of your luxuriant imagination to someone else.

[Vik_NJ]

Listen, it seems like you don't know what do you whant to say.

Do you remember what did you start from? You said: "a mistake". What a mistake? Don't be shaddy, point by finger.

But instead you layed out a mud like: "this is not what I said, I said not what I mean, what you see is someting else and I do not understand that I have written". I.e. you do explain nothing but your "grammatical narcissism".

Then please be so kind do not longer ascribe the fruits of your luxuriant imagination to someone else.

Well, I don't really have much to say on the topic of this heated discussion , but I do want to make an observation. You see, you made several mistakes in your post... pretty bad mistakes. It would be fine if you weren't arguing about advanced topics of English grammar. Rude posts accusing people of "grammatical narcissism" should be written in flawless English !!!

[M_K]

Well, I don't really have much to say on the topic of this heated discussion , but I do want to make an observation. You see, you made several mistakes in your post... pretty bad mistakes. It would be fine if you weren't arguing about advanced topics of English grammar. Rude posts accusing people of "grammatical narcissism" should be written in flawless English !!!

Really? Bad mistakes?
O, mein Gott! Nur kann der Tod meinen Fehler buessen...
Пойду, утоплюсь с горя в ванне, что ли.

BTW, you seems to be really smart guy? I haven't seen here any of your wise suggestions or explanations posted, do I miss something? Or most probably you are one of those know-all-say-nothing persons who can only blow out their cheeks?

[Capricorn]

..Really? Bad mistakes?
O, mein Gott! Nur kann der Tod meinen Fehler buessen...
Пойду, утоплюсь с горя в ванне, что ли.

BTW, you seems to be really smart guy? I haven't seen here any of your wise suggestions or explanations posted, do I miss something? Or most probably you are one of those know-all-say-nothing persons who can only blow out their cheeks?

Совет был дружескии, зря вы обижаетесь... Ну сделали ошибки в англииском, с кем не бывает..

[OOOO]

BTW, you seems to be really smart guy? I haven't seen here any of your wise suggestions or explanations posted, do I miss something? Or most probably you are one of those know-all-say-nothing persons who can only blow out their cheeks?

Ну, если Вы так настаиваете, то скажем я могу разобрать вышепроцитированный параграф по косточкам, и указать как минимум на одну ошибку в каждом из трех предложений.

Делать этого мне не хочется. Вы ведете себя неприлично.

[M_K]

Совет был дружескии, зря вы обижаетесь... Ну сделали ошибки в англииском, с кем не бывает..

Я, скорее, иронизирую...

[M_K]

Тьфу, блин, сообщение куда-то пропало...

BTW, you seems to be really smart guy? I haven't seen here any of your wise suggestions or explanations posted, do I miss something? Or most probably you are one of those know-all-say-nothing persons who can only blow out their cheeks?

Ну, если Вы так настаиваете, то скажем я могу разобрать вышепроцитированный параграф по косточкам, и указать как минимум на одну ошибку в каждом из трех предложений.

Делать этого мне не хочется. Вы ведете себя неприлично.

Ну, так, хотите указать - укажите, не хотите - не указывайте, а походя бросить "у вас полно ошибок", к тому же, не в строчку, - это тоже слегка mauvais ton, вы не находите?