On Thursday 16 May 2002 12:40 am, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:27:06AM +0100, phil hunt wrote:
On the contrary, "freedom software" *is* grammatically correct, even if it is a bit odd-sounding. The grammar-rule in question is something like:
noun_expression : modifier noun
modifier : adjective | noun
IOW, an ordinary noun can be used as a modifier.
You can tell whether a modifier is an adjective by seeing if it can be used after "be". Examples:
"the red car" > "the car is red"
Therefore "red" is an adjective
"the image conversion" > *"the conversion is image"
Therefore "image" is a noun
Your grammar is flawed, as it:
- allows many ungrammatical contructions
- has one rule for different relations
Relation in 'image conversion' is: image conversion ::= conversion that-acts-on image
Relation in 'red car' is: red car ::= car is red
So in 'freedom software' it will be: freedom software ::= software that-acts-on freedom
I think you are confusing syntax with semantics here. A better expansion for
<modifier> <noun>
might be:
<noun> having-something-to-do-with <modifier>
In other words, it can express lots of different sorts of relationships. Examples:
opening positions [in chess] = positions in the opening peace conference = a conference to discuss / bring about peace email headers = headers in an email communication system = a system for communication
etc.
What makes no sense.
You can use some nouns as adjectives, for example noun 'computer' can be used in some contexts as adjective 'computer' (computer program),
No. As I have noted, "computer" here isn't an adjective, it is a modifier.
but word 'freedom' can't because it's adjective form is 'free'. That's why the proper form is 'free software' not 'freedom software'.
The correct grammar of any language is that grammar which native speakers actually use. So, do native English speakers actually use "freedom" a a modifier? It appears they do; Mark Ray has already mentioned the example of "freedom food".