Re: One-To-One Relationships
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:46:09 -0400
Message-ID: <47507695$0$5255$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>>David Cressey wrote:
>>
>>>"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote in message
>>>news:ZTX3j.7775$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"
>>>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.
>
> That's a joke, right Bob? This time I'll try not to give it away!
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:46:09 -0400
Message-ID: <47507695$0$5255$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
David Cressey wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:47505d5d$0$5287$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net... >
>>David Cressey wrote:
>>
>>>"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_ooyah.ac> wrote in message
>>>news:ZTX3j.7775$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 >>>>the grammars of Latin and Greek, which had been honed to a fine state,
>>>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,
>>>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.
>
> That's a joke, right Bob? This time I'll try not to give it away!
Don't even get me started on tri-syllabic laxing! Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 21:46:09 CET