PetitChaton wrote: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.
All I said, was "adjective in _traditional grammar terms_".
