4 ms·

No, I know green is a noun and I can show you two greens.

lisper 2y ago
Would you please? Because I cannot imagine how you would do it. I can imagine how you could show me two green things, just as I can imagine how you could show me two big things, but I cannot imagine how you could show me two greens but not two bigs. Please enlighten me.
- cgriswald 2y ago
  Yes, I need a green thing to show you a green. But you are looking at a green when you view the green thing. I can show you “big” but cannot show you two bigs because big is a comparison of the size of two things. Size is a property of a thing (and yes, I can show you two sizes).
  - lisper 2y ago
    > you are looking at a green when you view the green thing Am I looking at a big when I look at a big thing? Are you a native English speaker?
    - cgriswald 2y ago
      Yes, I am a native English speaker. No, you are not looking at a big when you are looking at “a big thing”. You are looking at a size when you are looking at an object with size. Is this going somewhere?
      - lisper 2y ago
        I'm trying to understand why you think there is a difference between "green" and "big" so that when I'm looking at a green thing I'm seeing a green, but when I'm looking at a big thing I'm not seeing a big. Yes, big is a size, but so what? Green is a color. Why do you think colors are different from sizes with regards to what part of speech they are?
        cgriswald 2y ago
        All colors of a certain set are 'greens', but no particular sizes are 'bigs'. Is the Earth big? Yes, relative to us. No, relative to the sun. "Big" isn't describing size directly the way 'green' describes color. "Big" is describing the relationship between an object's size and some other size.
        lisper 2y ago
        OK, so can you show me a married? An employed? A four-legged? A three-sided? An objectively-correct? Do you not recognize that all of those sound weird and are not grammatically correct English?
        cgriswald 2y ago
        I can show you "a green" because they are colors and you can presumably see colors. I can show you one green, and then show you a different green, and you can choose "this green" or "that green" as the green you prefer. I can also show you a 'three-side' or a 'four-leg' (I've seen that one used in fiction), assuming a proper definition for either and this would not be grammatically incorrect. I think 'an objectively-correct' could also work but I'm not sure when it would ever be useful; it certainly wouldn't be useful in the way 'a green' is useful. We already use 'employed' as a noun. "This policy will benefit only the employed." Why this only applies to a group is a peculiarity of the language. "A married" I'm less certain about, but it is also more conceptually fraught. Ultimately, I'd say that English is messy and not philosophically consistent; use cases matter a lot.
        lisper 2y ago
        > I can show you one green, and then show you a different green Ah. OK, that makes sense. That usage of the word had not occurred to me. I guess I should choose a different word to be my canonical example. Thanks.

Would you please? Because I cannot imagine how you would do it. I can imagine how you could show me two green things, just as I can imagine how you could show me two big things, but I cannot imagine how you could show me two greens but not two bigs. Please enlighten me.

cgriswald 2y ago
Yes, I need a green thing to show you a green. But you are looking at a green when you view the green thing. I can show you “big” but cannot show you two bigs because big is a comparison of the size of two things. Size is a property of a thing (and yes, I can show you two sizes).
- lisper 2y ago
  > you are looking at a green when you view the green thing Am I looking at a big when I look at a big thing? Are you a native English speaker?
  - cgriswald 2y ago
    Yes, I am a native English speaker. No, you are not looking at a big when you are looking at “a big thing”. You are looking at a size when you are looking at an object with size. Is this going somewhere?
    - lisper 2y ago
      I'm trying to understand why you think there is a difference between "green" and "big" so that when I'm looking at a green thing I'm seeing a green, but when I'm looking at a big thing I'm not seeing a big. Yes, big is a size, but so what? Green is a color. Why do you think colors are different from sizes with regards to what part of speech they are?
      - cgriswald 2y ago
        All colors of a certain set are 'greens', but no particular sizes are 'bigs'. Is the Earth big? Yes, relative to us. No, relative to the sun. "Big" isn't describing size directly the way 'green' describes color. "Big" is describing the relationship between an object's size and some other size.
        lisper 2y ago
        OK, so can you show me a married? An employed? A four-legged? A three-sided? An objectively-correct? Do you not recognize that all of those sound weird and are not grammatically correct English?
        cgriswald 2y ago
        I can show you "a green" because they are colors and you can presumably see colors. I can show you one green, and then show you a different green, and you can choose "this green" or "that green" as the green you prefer. I can also show you a 'three-side' or a 'four-leg' (I've seen that one used in fiction), assuming a proper definition for either and this would not be grammatically incorrect. I think 'an objectively-correct' could also work but I'm not sure when it would ever be useful; it certainly wouldn't be useful in the way 'a green' is useful. We already use 'employed' as a noun. "This policy will benefit only the employed." Why this only applies to a group is a peculiarity of the language. "A married" I'm less certain about, but it is also more conceptually fraught. Ultimately, I'd say that English is messy and not philosophically consistent; use cases matter a lot.
        lisper 2y ago
        > I can show you one green, and then show you a different green Ah. OK, that makes sense. That usage of the word had not occurred to me. I guess I should choose a different word to be my canonical example. Thanks.