The eight Parts of Speech in English are: noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, adjective, preposition, conjunction and interjection.
I’ve come up with three words that do not fit any of the above parts of speech:
The first is the honorific “O,” as in “I beseech thee, O King, for blah blah blah…” It’s used quite a bit in the Bible, even in modern translations, but outside of scripture I don’t see it used in daily life, except sarcastically (as in, when my wife gives me some petty request, and I respond by saying “Your wish is my command, O Lady of the House.”) I can’t really make a case for it belonging to any one category of parts of speech.
The other two are the words “Sir” and “Ma’am,” used in addressing someone. For example, a soldier responding to a command from an officer may say “Yes Sir” or “Yes Lieutenant,” but whereas “Lieutenant” is also a noun (as in, “My son is now a Lieutenant in the Army”), “Sir” is not (you don’t say, “My son is a Sir in the Army.”)
I’m confused about what you’re saying. You might say “Yes, Mister Smith”, but you wouldn’t say “My son is a mister” (unless he had a job spraying plants).
I have a feeling that exceptions of this type are going to be so common that they’re not exceptional.
Actually, there are no English words that don’t fit into the parts of speech. There are a few additional classifications (“particle,” for instance), but English majors have kept busy for decades classifying each word.
It’s obviously true that hardly anybody knows grammar to even 1% of the level of what specialists know about the subject. Still, the idea that the English language hasn’t been so thoroughly and completely studied in minute detail that there are words that don’t fit into the categories is kinda silly. That English grammar is remotely similar to the subject you were taught in school is equally absurd. It compares the way your science fair volcano compares to quantum physics.
True specialists love taking apart the simplest and commonest words, which are the words most buffeted by the gales and currents of everyday use, to study the ways they twist and mutate. There are no uncertainties about “O” or “Sir”.
That is the difference between Prescriptivistism and Descriptivism. My Linguistics professors jokingly listed them as follows: Prescriptivist (English majors) and Descriptivists (Linguistics majors). There’s a lot of truth in that joke.
But notice that it was linguistics teachers who said it. There’s s little bias there. Most linguists were at one time English majors, I would think, and still, themselves, abide by the general principles of traditional grammar. There are exceptions, but that generally has been my own experience.
Further, I would expect linguists to be focused on descriptivism. They are the scientists of language and that is their purpose.
But not all who study linguistics become descriptivists solely.
I’d even go so far as to say that anyone who learned any language as a non-native speaker to a decent extent could probably tell native speakers things about the grammar of their language that would leave them dumbfound. Because you learn the larger part of your language in a non-structured, unconscious manner, you just know things that other people have to learn by heart.
I agree. I write grammatically, but I have to stop and think carefully about the grammar questions here and sometimes I can’t answer them at all. I care about usage far more than I care about grammar.
Of course there is. That’s why the butt of the joke is the English major. Now, if it had been an English professor telling the joke unaltered, the butt would be the Linguistics major. It’s a matter of opinion of wihch is better, after all, as far as the joke goes, Prescriptivism or Descriptivism.
I seriously doubt that. Quite a lot of my classmates and I entered the field because we’re fascinated by language itself.
Of course. They’ll certainly abide by the dictates of the grammar of the prestige standard while they’re in a formal situation unless they don’t care how they’re perceived by those who can affect their careers.
Not every scientist is a good scientist. <—That’s a joke.
By the way, if you want to see some truly amazing clashes between Prescriptivism and Reality, you should be present when one of the Korean English teachers asks one of us native English teachers a question on grammar and then tells us we’re wrong because the incredibly badly written textbook, authored years ago in Korea by some Korean professor with “big name” schools on his resume but little actual knowledge, says something contrary.
What gives you this idea? I’d assume most linguists were linguistics majors. Among those who weren’t, I think mathematics and computer science majors would make up a good number—possibly more than English majors.
IANAL (I am not a linguist), but I understand that particle is a pretty broad category, which includes what are usually described as articles, conjunctions and prepositions in English. I’d agree that “to” as an infinitive marker in English is a particle, but not a preposition, because prepositions go with nouns, and not with verbs.
I find these words very confusing: one could write “the house burned down”-and also write “the house burned up”-both have the same meanings.Are “down/up” nounns or adjectives?
