Re: THEORY nouns and cases (was: Verbs derived from noun cases)

Philippe Caquant wrote at 2004-04-27 12:33:42 (-0700)
 > I think the English say something like "the proof of
 > the pudding is when you eat it". So I'm tempted the
 > answer the same. Let's take, maybe not a fox
 > (inconvenient), but a matchbox for ex. I can put it in
 > my pocket. I cannot put a "red" or a "burn" in my
 > pocket. That's what I suppose that a matchbox doesn't
 > belong to the same conceptual category as "red" or "to
 > burn". If of course don't talk about reality, which I
 > ignore, but about concepts.
 >
 > A fox may bite me, but I'm pretty sure no "brown" ever
 > will bite me, because there is no such thing as a
 > brown, except in language games maybe.
 >

Not at all.  This is simply because you're speaking English.  If you
were speaking a language in which any content lexeme could be used
both as an argument and as a predicate, "a brown" would simply be "a
brown thing".  There are many brown things which can bite you, and
many red things which you can put in your pocket.