3

A common construction in some foreign languages, but seemly not in English, is to use a noun where we would use an adjective. The two forms are:

A: PRONOUN "BE" ADJECTIVE
B: PRONOUN "HAVE" ∅-DETERMINER ATTRIBUTIVE-NOUN

I have used "PRONOUN" for simplicity, although it could equally be a noun phrase. Note that even in French where determiners before nouns are usually mandatory, there is no determiner in the (B) grammar:

  • English (A): He is hungry
    Dutch (B): Hij heeft honger
    French (B): Il a faim
  • English (A): He is thirsty
    Dutch (B): Hij heeft dorst
    French (B): Il a soif
  • English (A): He is intelligent
    Dutch (A): Hij is intelligent
    French (A): Il est intelligent
  • English (A): He is strong
    Dutch (A): Hij is sterk
    French (A): Il est fort
  • English (A): He is ugly
    Dutch (A): Hij is lelijk
    French (A): Il est laid

If one foreign language uses the (B) form instead of the (A) form, it seems likely that the others will too. This seems to indicate that it's something about the meanings of the words, not the grammar. Although it's not idiomatic, we could say each of these in the (B) form in English:

  • He has hunger
  • He has thirst
  • He has intelligence
  • He has strength
  • He has ugliness

Trying to make these partitive changes their meaning. "He has some X[ATTRIBUTIVE-NOUN]" means roughly "He is somewhat X[ADJECTIVE]". I'm not sure if English has any idiomatic (B) constructions.

The only difference I can see is that the (B) form denotes a short-term state, whereas the (A) form denotes a long-term state. I seem to remember something about Spanish having two nouns for "to be" that roughly correspond to short and long-term attributes.

Compare with the partitive construction:

C: PRONOUN "HAVE" (DETERMINER) NON-ATTRIBUTIVE-NOUN
  • English (C): He has (some) milk
    Dutch (C): Hij heeft (wat) melk
    French (C): Il a du lait

Both Dutch and French have all the constructions (A), (B), and (C), whereas English only has the (A) and (C) constructions idiomatically (as far as I know), with (B) being understandable but (mostly?) unidiomatic.

What is it about these nouns that causes them to be used instead of adjectives? Why don't they take determiners in the (B) construction?

CJ Dennis
  • 1,242
  • 6
  • 17
  • What about he had wit and charm, she had power and influence? Or he's got the hump / he's got the horn. I've also heard then I got the fear. I think there are a lot of things that might need to be teased apart here - he had wit by itself doesn't work, for example, and there isn't always a difference. For me at least, she's really talented is pretty much the same as she's got a lot of talent. –  Mar 01 '19 at 10:27
  • Also, in many cases it makes a difference whether there is detail to add - he has ugliness doesn't work but he has the kind of ugliness that makes children run away in terror is OK, linguistically at least - so possibly to do with the weight of the noun phrase –  Mar 01 '19 at 10:30

0 Answers0