"Such" as a part of speech

[virr2]

Mod comment - split from a discussion here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=218548.

Can I write:
There were such a few students registered that the class was cancelled.
Is it the same as the original one?

However, the sentence: "There were such stupid students registered that the class was cancelled" would be OK

 

[elroy]

However, the sentence: "There were such stupid students registered that the class was cancelled" would be OK

Yes, because there "such" is modifying "students" and not "stupid."

 

[virr2]

I wasn't sure of my suggestion (that's why I said "I think") but now that I've thought about it some more I'm convinced it's wrong as well.

However, I don't think it has to do with whether the following noun is singular or plural, but with the fact that "such" is an adjective and not an adverb. As such (no pun intended), it cannot modify the adjective "few." It must modify a noun.

"Such" is not an adjective, it is a determiner. What's more, it can function also as a pronoun, e.g "Such is my belief".

 

[elroy]

"Such" is not an adjective, it is a determiner. What's more, it can function also as a pronoun, e.g "Such is my belief".

A determiner can be an adjective.

As for "such is my belief" - I would argue that it could be considered an adjective in that sentence as well. If it's a pronoun, what type of pronoun is it?

In any case, the point was that it's not an adverb.

 

[virr2]

True, but "determiner" has a broader meaning. Each adjective is a determiner, but not every determiner is an adjective

 

[virr2]

One more thing: "so few" should be actually called "quantifier", which of course is a determiner.

 

[virr2]

A determiner can be an adjective.

As for "such is my belief" - I would argue that it could be considered an adjective in that sentence as well. If it's a pronoun, what type of pronoun is it?

In any case, the point was that it's not an adverb.

What type of pronoun? Demonstrative one.

 

[elroy]

True, but "determiner" has a broader meaning. Each adjective is a determiner, but not every determiner is an adjective

I can't think of a determiner that is not an adjective - but either way, "such" is an adjective.

What type of pronoun? Demonstrative one.

This is news to me. I learned that the demonstrative pronouns are "this," "that," "these," and "those." Could you show me a grammar reference that lists "such" as a demonstrative pronoun?

 

[timpeac]

I must say that I tend to agree with Virr here. Such may or may not be considered a demonstrative pronoun in traditional grammars, but that doesn't necessarily stop it acting as one or being one (bearing in mind, of course that the same word can act as different parts of speech depending on the context).

"Such is life" would seem to me to have much more in common with "this is life" than it does with "white is snow".

- "White is snow" is a very unusual positioning of words, "such is life" is normal, as is "this is life".
- Similarly "life is such" and "life is this" are not the normal wordings, but "snow is white" is.
- You can't say "a such life" or "a this life" like you can "a white snowfall".

Anyway, all indicators that this "such" is acting like a demonstrative pronoun there, I think.

 

[elroy]

Well, you can say "such a life" but not "this a life." Why can't we consider "such" an adjective in a category of its own? I just don't see anything "demonstrative" about it, even though syntactically it tends to be placed in the same position as demonstrative pronouns.

At any rate, I just want to clarify that whether or not it's an adjective in "Such is life" - it is an adjective as a determiner. Just wanted to clarify that to avoid any confusion since we seem to be discussing the word in various contexts.

 

[timpeac]

Well, you can say "such a life" but not "this a life." Why can't we consider "such" an adjective in a category of its own? I just don't see anything "demonstrative" about it, even though syntactically it tends to be placed in the same position as demonstrative pronouns.

True - but it depends how many categories you want, or whether you want fewer categories with some exceptions etc. I see your point though. I think the whole discussion on this boils down to the fact that we are trying to analyse English using terms which are based firmly and squarely on Latin - a straight-jacket that rarely fits English structure well.

 

[virr2]

I can't think of a determiner that is not an adjective - but either way, "such" is an adjective.
This is news to me. I learned that the demonstrative pronouns are "this," "that," "these," and "those." Could you show me a grammar reference that lists "such" as a demonstrative pronoun?

Elroy,

There are many determiners which are not adjectives.These are:
- articles
- demonstratives
- possessives
- quanifiers (e.g. all, many, few, some)
- numerals (e.g.one, two, 1/3, twofold, thrid)


As to the second question, "such" is a demonstrative pronoun (as well as "former", "latter", "same"), though usually one associates demonstratives with this/these/that/those.
I will try to find "the proof" for that on the Net

 

[timpeac]

As to the second question, "such" is a demonstrative pronoun (as well as "former", "latter", "same"), though usually one associates demonstratives with this/these/that/those.
I will try to find "the proof" for that on the Net

Well, grammar is just a man-made filtre to understand the structure of language. You won't find "proof" as such (since you can do what you like with man-made constructs - if you wanted to you could say that "you" is a verb which is utterly irregular in form and usage, but it wouldn't be very helpful), but you might find corroboration that someone else agrees with you that "such" is most usefully categorised as a demonstrative in such situations - if you see what I mean.

 

[virr2]

Anyway, I found something which may (but not necessarily) persuade someone that "such" can function as a demonstrative

This is what I found:

"The family of demonstratives (this/that/these/those/such) can behave either as pronouns or as determiners."

It is copied from http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns1.htm

Cheers,
Virr

 

[virr2]

Well, you can say "such a life" but not "this a life." Why can't we consider "such" an adjective in a category of its own? I just don't see anything "demonstrative" about it, even though syntactically it tends to be placed in the same position as demonstrative pronouns.

At any rate, I just want to clarify that whether or not it's an adjective in "Such is life" - it is an adjective as a determiner. Just wanted to clarify that to avoid any confusion since we seem to be discussing the word in various contexts.

What is demonstrative about "such"?
In a sentence as "Such is my opinion" you refer to the opinion you've just expressed. It is a deictic word.
"Such" is not an adjective because unlike adjectives it doesn't describe a noun and its attributes; it doesn't make it more specific.

 

[elroy]

Elroy,

There are many determiners which are not adjectives.These are:
- articles
- demonstratives
- possessives
- quanifiers (e.g. all, many, few, some)
- numerals (e.g.one, two, 1/3, twofold, thrid)

Those are all adjectives in my book. As Tim said, there are different ways of looking at grammar I guess.

"Such" is not an adjective because unlike adjectives it doesn't describe a noun and its attributes; it doesn't make it more specific.

Yes it does! "A book" is not the same thing as "such a book." In the latter case you are limiting the book to a certain type of book - such a book.

The way I learned grammar - and the way most natives learn grammar, I would venture to say - is that there are eight parts of speech (verb, noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection) and in every sentence every word functions as one of the above (of course, the same word can function as more than one part of speech depending on the sentence). I never came across the word "determiner" except in my studies of foreign languages. I know what the word means, but to me it's just a type of adjective and not another part of speech.

Clearly we have studied grammar in different ways and that's causing us to analyze things differently!

 

[virr2]

Those are all adjectives in my book. As Tim said, there are different ways of looking at grammar I guess.
Yes it does! "A book" is not the same thing as "such a book." In the latter case you are limiting the book to a certain type of book - such a book.

The way I learned grammar - and the way most natives learn grammar, I would venture to say - is that there are eight parts of speech (verb, noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection) and in every sentence every word functions as one of the above (of course, the same word can function as more than one part of speech depending on the sentence). I never came across the word "determiner" except in my studies of foreign languages. I know what the word means, but to me it's just a type of adjective and not another part of speech.

Clearly we have studied grammar in different ways and that's causing us to analyze things differently!

Elroy,

"Such" makes "book" as much specific as a determiner or quantifier (e.g. this book, many books, one book), it points to the book, restricts the use of the noun rather than expresses the book's attributes (e.g. an interesting book, a boring book, heavy book, text book) or restricts the use of the noun to a certain type. "This book", "Many books" doesn't contribute qualitative information of a noun phrase. "Many books", "Few books" is different from "Red books", "Interesting books", etc.



Determiner is not just a type of adjective. In one of my posts in this tread I told you that yes, every adjective is a determiner but not every determiner is an adjective. There are many differences between them, however in some cases they may have similar positions and even similar interpretations. Analyse the differences. This extract is copied from Wikipedia.

1. In English, articles, demonstratives, and possessive determiners cannot co-occur in the same phrase while any number of adjectives are typically alowed.
   1. A big green expensive English book
   2. * The his book
2. <<etc - for the full text see HERE >>

My books, among them: "A Practical English Grammar" by Thomson and Martiner and Longman "Dictionary of Contemporary English" name "such" a determiner not adjective.

Chees

 

[elroy]

Virr,

I understand your perspective but I don't agree with it - or rather, it doesn't agree with what I've always been taught.

To me, an adjective is a word that either describes or limits a word. Therefore, all determiners are adjectives.

So to me, all determiners are adjectives but not all adjectives are determiners.

Bottom line is, we both understand the structures; we just use different terms to identify different types of words.

 

[timpeac]

Elroy, Virr (and any others who want to join in - don't be shy!) I think your interesting discussion on "such" has moved away from the topic title. I'm going to move your posts to specific thread therefore. Please fasten your seat-belts.

 

[virr2]

Virr,

I understand your perspective but I don't agree with it - or rather, it doesn't agree with what I've always been taught.

To me, an adjective is a word that either describes or limits a word. Therefore, all determiners are adjectives.

So to me, all determiners are adjectives but not all adjectives are determiners.

Bottom line is, we both understand the structures; we just use different terms to identify different types of words.

So we stick to our points of view.
"I have a book" - Do you call "a" an adjective?

Thank you for an interesting discussion,
Virr

 

[elroy]

So we stick to our points of view.
"I have a book" - Do you call "a" an adjective?

Absolutely. One of the first things I learned was that all articles are adjectives.

 

[bartonig]

Virr,

I understand your perspective but I don't agree with it - or rather, it doesn't agree with what I've always been taught.

To me, an adjective is a word that either describes or limits a word. Therefore, all determiners are adjectives.

So to me, all determiners are adjectives but not all adjectives are determiners.

Bottom line is, we both understand the structures; we just use different terms to identify different types of words.

The idea expressed above in orange text does not encompass all uses of 'adjectives'. Rich in the sentence Fast cars can be afforded only by the rich is an adjective but does not limit or describe another word.

 

[maxiogee]

The idea expressed above in orange text does not encompass all uses of 'adjectives'. Rich in the sentence Fast cars can be afforded only by the rich is an adjective but does not limit or describe another word.

Tosh!
The word rich there is a collective noun. (source, Collins English Dictionary)

 

[bartonig]

Absolutely. One of the first things I learned was that all articles are adjectives.

Is the zero-determiner an adjective? Some grammarians argue that the deictic in the nominal group in There are horses in the road simply has no sound (in spoken language) and no orthographic form - i.e. a zero-determiner or zero-article.

 

[panjandrum]

I can understand how such could be called a pronoun in such is my belief. In context, such may be referring to some set of concepts or principles that have previously been articulated.

(1) yadda yadda yadda
(2) yadda yadda yadda
.
.
(4,372) yadda yadda yadda

Such is my belief.

 

[bartonig]

Tosh!
The word rich there is a collective noun. (source, Collins English Dictionary)

Yes, but if you go to the Oxford Concise you'll only find an adjective. My point is that dependence on dictionaries and grammars (especially the ones we were taught with) gets us nowhere. Furthermore, arguing about whether or not a certain word is an adjective or noun, or another is an adjective or determiner is not productive. It doesn't really expose anything about the nature of the language.

 

[panjandrum]

[...] It doesn't really expose anything about the nature of the language.

Well in a way it does - or perhaps I should say it may do, for there have been one or two occasions around here when it didn't.

Here we have a word (rich) that from its earliest beginnings was used as both adjective and noun but yet appears in some dictionaries today only as an adjective. Isn't that really strange when its use as a noun is so very familiar?

 

[bartonig]

Well in a way it does - or perhaps I should say it may do, for there have been one or two occasions around here when it didn't.

Here we have a word (rich) that from its earliest beginnings was used as both adjective and noun but yet appears in some dictionaries today only as an adjective. Isn't that really strange when its use as a noun is so very familiar?

I would say that it points up a certain lack of worth in the traditional system we call parts of speech. When what we call adjectives, nouns, determiners, pronouns and so on can be used interchangeably wouldn't it be better to lump them all as, say, nouns but add that these nouns can have one or more qualities - some may exhibit (depending on the context) determining qualities, some (including some of the aforementioned) may have numerative qualities, some may be used attributively and so on. That way one gets to understand the qualities that a word can have and there is then the possibility of a better or more rigorous analysis of the language (any language, actually).

 

[equivoque]

I'd say you have to limit your expectations of a Concise dictionary.

 

[bartonig]

I'd say you have to limit your expectations of a Concise dictionary.

Concise is a relative term - the dictionary is more concise than the main edition of the Oxford. It does not make a comparision between different dictionaries. Incidentally, the online Collins does not show rich as a noun. Encarta does. I am sure these grammarians make it up as they go along.

 

[equivoque]

It wasn't my intention to seem blunt. My point is that the words and their usage in English, chop and change, and take on new meanings constantly. It would be impossible to include every combination and computation of each word in a dictionary like that. I have a Concise O. and it is limited. That's why forums such as this and supporting texts, together with a good library of fiction is invaluable. Let's face it, over the centuries we have created a mountain range out of an ant hill!

 

[elroy]

I must have lost and re-gained my subscription to this thread, because I only just got a notification of a reply.

Bartonig, you propose a radical change in the way English grammar is to be organized. In fact, your approach is similar to the one used in Arabic grammar. In Arabic, all words are either nouns, verbs, or particles. The category "nouns" includes pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs; and the category "particles" includes prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. As you suggest, these are seen as merely various functions of the same part of speech and not as different part of speech. Anyway, your idea is not unprecedented but it is certainly not the way English grammar is currently presented. Perhaps one day you can completely revolutionize the study of English grammar!