7 ms·

It's a noun too

fc417fc802 6mo ago
I was about to object that the latter is not in fact a noun but was surprised to see that wiktionary lists it as such. However it provides no usage examples and I strongly suspect it is in error.
- sheept 6mo ago
  I think it is occasionally used with "the," i.e. "the conscious" (referring to the conscious part of your body, for example). Adjectives sometimes become nouns this way, like "the poor"
  - thaumasiotes 6mo ago
    I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English ( https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ ) for 'conscious_n', which means the token "conscious" with a 'noun' part-of-speech tag. There are five results. All five of them are tagging errors: If we scan to get enough info, then model the cells well enough, and have enough computers to run the simulation of the models, then the input-output of the emulation of the brain will be the same as the input-output of the original brain. It will act like it is conscious. [adjective, modifying it] Well, first we work on working the body together, so that we can go places with both of us conscious. [adjective, modifying both of us] Lady Bertram looks barely conscious. [adjective, modifying Lady Bertram] In a few years, he believed, this institution would be needed in Ukraine, as new conscripts became more religiously conscious. [adjective, modifying new conscripts] It is in this sense that Rahner means that grace is conscious. [adjective, modifying grace] Examples 3 and 4 are so far from being nouns that they're being modified by adverbs. It seems safe to conclude that in fact there is no nounal use of the word "conscious". > Adjectives sometimes become nouns this way, like "the poor" That isn't actually what's happening in "the poor". The position occupied by the token poor in that phrase can be filled by all kinds of things: God loves everyone equally. The rich and the poor, the just and the unjust, the sane and the schizophrenic, the possessed-of-billions-of-dollars and the penniless... Do you want to argue that "possessed of billions of dollars" is a noun? We can apply our in-passing observation from earlier and contrast the fully-awake with the barely-conscious. Here, as above, it's impossible for conscious to be a noun, because it is being modified by an adverb. And it's... dubious... for barely conscious to be a noun phrase, because it is headed by conscious, which we know isn't a noun.
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      Nice dataset, I didn't know about that one. Is my impression correct, that in general "the {thing}" is a noun phrase without implying anything about {thing} itself?
      - thaumasiotes 6mo ago
        > Is my impression correct, that in general "the {thing}" is a noun phrase without implying anything about {thing} itself? Yes, with some minor caveats: 1. Some people prefer to see "the {thing}" as a 'determiner phrase', where 'determiner' is the name for the part of speech to which the belongs. You can call it a 'noun phrase' without losing anything meaningful. 'Noun phrase' is definitely a better term if you're not deep in the technical weeds of grammatical analysis. 2. There are conclusions you could draw about {thing}, but they're more complex than "it's a noun". It's fair to just not talk about them. 3. In language, there are always problems somewhere for any analysis. (Which is why an unbroken chain of transmission can have Latin on one side and French on the other.) I wouldn't even say that a noun phrase with that structure exists at all in an example like "The more you say it, the more I think it". But that particular construction is weird enough that I'm perfectly comfortable saying it's just outside the scope of your qualifier "in general".
dcre 6mo ago
No it isn't. Can you give an example?
- LoganDark 6mo ago
  I am a conscious because I am conscious. Similar to how I am an autistic because I am autistic. I would argue, though, that doesn't make conscious a noun, but simply uses an adjective as a noun.
  - culopatin 6mo ago
    Isn’t it an adjective on both? Being conscious because you have consciousness. Otherwise you’re repeating the same thing. I’m happy because I’m happy. I’m pink because I’m pink? Disclaimer: ESL
    - LoganDark 6mo ago
      I think those examples would be "I'm a happy because I'm happy", or "I'm a pink because I'm pink". In both cases you're sort of using an adjective as a noun, at least if you're not overloading it with an actual noun. (e.g., if you invented yourself a term, like calling certain types of people "Happies", etc.)
  - dwb 6mo ago
    I’ve never heard that usage, it doesn’t sound right to me. (Relatedly, “an autistic” is generally considered dated / mildly offensive / just incorrect. Better is “an autistic person”, which makes it an adjective again. There does exist the noun “autist” which I do hear occasionally, but not from autistic people as far as I’m aware, so would probably avoid as well.)
    - LoganDark 6mo ago
      > Relatedly, “an autistic” is generally considered dated / mildly offensive / just incorrect. Is it? I've heard those sentiments about "a person with autism" (and more generally, "autism" as something you have rather than "autistic" as something you are), but not about the term "autistic" as a noun in general. I use "autistic" as a noun a lot, because I don't like to assume that everyone identifies as a person. (Even though doing so is normalized enough that not doing it looks more out of place.) > There does exist the noun “autist” which I do hear occasionally, but not from autistic people as far as I’m aware, so would probably avoid as well. In my experience "autist" doesn't necessarily have to do with autism itself, but more specifically the element of "weirdness"/"cringe" that others can have at it; i.e. it's usually used in a self-deprecating way to refer to some sort of weird or deranged behavior (and isn't at all a neutral way to refer to others). Though, most of my exposure to the term is from 4chan/2b2t; in those spaces autism in general is often used as a synonym for mental illness.

It's a noun too

I was about to object that the latter is not in fact a noun but was surprised to see that wiktionary lists it as such. However it provides no usage examples and I strongly suspect it is in error.

sheept 6mo ago
I think it is occasionally used with "the," i.e. "the conscious" (referring to the conscious part of your body, for example). Adjectives sometimes become nouns this way, like "the poor"
- thaumasiotes 6mo ago
  I searched the Corpus of Contemporary American English ( https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ ) for 'conscious_n', which means the token "conscious" with a 'noun' part-of-speech tag. There are five results. All five of them are tagging errors: If we scan to get enough info, then model the cells well enough, and have enough computers to run the simulation of the models, then the input-output of the emulation of the brain will be the same as the input-output of the original brain. It will act like it is conscious. [adjective, modifying it] Well, first we work on working the body together, so that we can go places with both of us conscious. [adjective, modifying both of us] Lady Bertram looks barely conscious. [adjective, modifying Lady Bertram] In a few years, he believed, this institution would be needed in Ukraine, as new conscripts became more religiously conscious. [adjective, modifying new conscripts] It is in this sense that Rahner means that grace is conscious. [adjective, modifying grace] Examples 3 and 4 are so far from being nouns that they're being modified by adverbs. It seems safe to conclude that in fact there is no nounal use of the word "conscious". > Adjectives sometimes become nouns this way, like "the poor" That isn't actually what's happening in "the poor". The position occupied by the token poor in that phrase can be filled by all kinds of things: God loves everyone equally. The rich and the poor, the just and the unjust, the sane and the schizophrenic, the possessed-of-billions-of-dollars and the penniless... Do you want to argue that "possessed of billions of dollars" is a noun? We can apply our in-passing observation from earlier and contrast the fully-awake with the barely-conscious. Here, as above, it's impossible for conscious to be a noun, because it is being modified by an adverb. And it's... dubious... for barely conscious to be a noun phrase, because it is headed by conscious, which we know isn't a noun.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    Nice dataset, I didn't know about that one. Is my impression correct, that in general "the {thing}" is a noun phrase without implying anything about {thing} itself?
    - thaumasiotes 6mo ago
      > Is my impression correct, that in general "the {thing}" is a noun phrase without implying anything about {thing} itself? Yes, with some minor caveats: 1. Some people prefer to see "the {thing}" as a 'determiner phrase', where 'determiner' is the name for the part of speech to which the belongs. You can call it a 'noun phrase' without losing anything meaningful. 'Noun phrase' is definitely a better term if you're not deep in the technical weeds of grammatical analysis. 2. There are conclusions you could draw about {thing}, but they're more complex than "it's a noun". It's fair to just not talk about them. 3. In language, there are always problems somewhere for any analysis. (Which is why an unbroken chain of transmission can have Latin on one side and French on the other.) I wouldn't even say that a noun phrase with that structure exists at all in an example like "The more you say it, the more I think it". But that particular construction is weird enough that I'm perfectly comfortable saying it's just outside the scope of your qualifier "in general".

dcre 6mo ago

No it isn't. Can you give an example?

LoganDark 6mo ago
I am a conscious because I am conscious. Similar to how I am an autistic because I am autistic. I would argue, though, that doesn't make conscious a noun, but simply uses an adjective as a noun.
- culopatin 6mo ago
  Isn’t it an adjective on both? Being conscious because you have consciousness. Otherwise you’re repeating the same thing. I’m happy because I’m happy. I’m pink because I’m pink? Disclaimer: ESL
  - LoganDark 6mo ago
    I think those examples would be "I'm a happy because I'm happy", or "I'm a pink because I'm pink". In both cases you're sort of using an adjective as a noun, at least if you're not overloading it with an actual noun. (e.g., if you invented yourself a term, like calling certain types of people "Happies", etc.)
- dwb 6mo ago
  I’ve never heard that usage, it doesn’t sound right to me. (Relatedly, “an autistic” is generally considered dated / mildly offensive / just incorrect. Better is “an autistic person”, which makes it an adjective again. There does exist the noun “autist” which I do hear occasionally, but not from autistic people as far as I’m aware, so would probably avoid as well.)
  - LoganDark 6mo ago
    > Relatedly, “an autistic” is generally considered dated / mildly offensive / just incorrect. Is it? I've heard those sentiments about "a person with autism" (and more generally, "autism" as something you have rather than "autistic" as something you are), but not about the term "autistic" as a noun in general. I use "autistic" as a noun a lot, because I don't like to assume that everyone identifies as a person. (Even though doing so is normalized enough that not doing it looks more out of place.) > There does exist the noun “autist” which I do hear occasionally, but not from autistic people as far as I’m aware, so would probably avoid as well. In my experience "autist" doesn't necessarily have to do with autism itself, but more specifically the element of "weirdness"/"cringe" that others can have at it; i.e. it's usually used in a self-deprecating way to refer to some sort of weird or deranged behavior (and isn't at all a neutral way to refer to others). Though, most of my exposure to the term is from 4chan/2b2t; in those spaces autism in general is often used as a synonym for mental illness.