Re: One-To-One Relationships

From: David Cressey <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:36:22 GMT
Message-ID: <GKY3j.10$Lg.2_at_trndny09>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news:ZTX3j.7775$UQ1.5775_at_pd7urf1no...
> JOG wrote:
> ...
> > Anything that can be described as a noun is an entity in my book,
> > whether abstract or not. We must be able to describe them by their
> > attributes, and identify them by one attribute that is consistent over
> > the lifetime in the universe of discourse. That's my take.
> > ...
> Not to brag, but in my haphazard quest to discern only the essential, I
> have wondered too about the possible importance of nouns. Can't prove
> it but I'm pretty sure any set of domain values can be turned into a
> noun, eg., "red" becomes "redness". Same for a "relationship entity".
> I'd say "noun" is an improvement over "entity" if that might make it
> more obvious that most logical system doesn't need to understand English
> grammar. But it also seems like a risky invite for more
> mountain-building by the techies with ulterior motives who like to turn
> nouns into verbs, eg., "architect".

I don't mean to start yet another meta-discussion, but the term "noun" is more useful in the grammatical analysis of Latin than of English. As somebody else said, any noun can be verbed in English. In particular, nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are distinguished from each other more by context and function than by differences in form.

When English first began to be studied from a grammatical point of view, the grammars of Latin and Greek, which had been honed to a fine state, were applied whole hog to English. Not necessarily a good fit. Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 19:36:22 CET

Original text of this message