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

Gary Shannon wrote at 2004-04-28 10:02:15 (-0700)
 > --- "Mark P. Line" <mark@...> wrote:
 > > Philippe Caquant said:
 > > > A Brown Bear is an animal whose property, among
 > > > others, is to be brown. A Brown is not an animal,
 > > it
 > > > is a property shared, among others, by Brown
 > > Bears.
 > > > Saying "A Brown" instead of "a Brown Bear" looks
 > > very
 > > > much like an ellipse, used to avoid repetition,
 > > and it
 > > > is understandable only in the case you have
 > > introduced
 > > > the concept of Brown Bear earlier in you speech
 > > > (otherwise, it could refer to brown sugar for ex).
 > >
 > > You're still talking about things you *say* as
 > > opposed to the concepts
 > > that are behind what you say. No, everyday English
 > > will not let you say "a
 > > brown" in the way you're using it,
 >
 > <snip>
 >
 > English usage DOES permit one to say "a brown" in that
 > way, as in the citation I quoted earlier.  If the
 > context is established, as in a discussion of brown
 > bears, black bears, grizzly bears, etc., it is
 > perfectly acceptable to say something like "A brown is
 > less agressive than a grizzly or a black."  My earlier
 > citation came from a wildlife web page and included
 > the statement "Browns are ominverous ..."

Yes, quite true.  But only in certain restricted senses - you can't
use "a brown" as a general replacement for "a brown thing".  "Brown"
as a noun meaning "brown bear" is not the same lexeme as the adjective
"brown".