Re: One-To-One Relationships

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:58:34 -0400
Message-ID: <47505d5d$0$5287$>

David Cressey wrote:
> "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.

If only I were able to find a use for the subjunctive and the reflexive, I would avail myself of both. Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 19:58:34 CET

Original text of this message