# What parts of speech are colors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 15, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540 "2009-08-15T18:17:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![otorophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3ab097/32.png) [@otorophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otorophile)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/1 "2009-08-15T18:17:01Z")
I got to thinking about this when showing some basic Japanese to my parents, explaining how “shiro” means white but you say “shiroi” when using white as an adjective. If I say “the red book” then obviously red is an adjective. What about “my favorite color is red” or “red evokes passion” or “the wavelength of red is 600 nm?” Because the first example could be like “my favorite girls are skinny” and skinny isn’t a noun, and maybe you need to say “red light” and not just “red.” Is there a word for words that can be used as multiple parts of speech? ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/2 "2009-08-15T18:30:06Z")
> [@otorophile](#): > > If I say “the red book” then obviously red is an adjective. What about “my favorite color is red” or “red evokes passion” or “the wavelength of red is 600 nm?” > > Because the first example could be like “my favorite girls are skinny” and skinny isn’t a noun, and maybe you need to say “red light” and not just “red.” > > Is there a word for words that can be used as multiple parts of speech? words can be more than on part of speech. i don’t know if a term exists for it. in ‘red evokes passion’, ‘red’ may be an adjective and ‘color’ would be an implied noun. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/3 "2009-08-15T18:32:09Z")
“My favorite color is red” is much more like “My favorite girl is Deborah” than “My favorite girls are skinny”. In that sentence, “red” is being used as a noun, just as in the following two examples you give. But, yes, color words can be used as multiple parts of speech. No biggy; many words can (they start as one part of speech (in the case of basic English color terms, I believe historically most started as adjectives (although “orange” started as a noun referring to the fruit)), and then eventually acquire usages in other fashions). (On edit: There’s no point adopting an analysis under which there is an “implied noun” of “color” in “red evokes passion”; that path leads nowhere useful. Far better to just accept that “red” can itself be employed as a noun and is serving capably in that role in that sentence) ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/4 "2009-08-15T18:44:09Z")
Just to reiterate: in English words can be more than one parts of speech. Nouns can act as adjectives (baseball bat) or turned into verbs.\* There is no word for it (well, maybe some obscure technical term) because it is commonplace. Technically, in the sentence “My favorite color is red,” “red” is a noun. In “My favorite girlfriend is skinny,” “skinny” is an adjective. The verb “to be” has magical grammatical properties that most other verbs do not\*\* however, which means it takes a complement, not a direct object. Thus it can take either an adjective or a noun to finish the sentence (“That water is wet.” “That water is the Pacific Ocean.”) \*Even though verbing weirds language. \*\*It’s technically called a “copula,” though English teachers use “linking verbs” so the class doesn’t laugh at the name. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/5 "2009-08-15T18:47:05Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > (On edit: There’s no point adopting an analysis under which there is an “implied noun” of “color” in “red evokes passion”; that path leads nowhere useful. Far better to just accept that “red” can itself be employed as a noun and is serving capably in that role in that sentence) there is a point if it is an answer and that is useful. yes red may be a noun that means ‘the color red’ color being an implied noun and red an adjective also provides an answer. even might be both. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/6 "2009-08-15T18:49:11Z")
Just to nitpick: I am irked by the idea that ‘baseball’ is somehow “acting as an adjective” in ‘baseball bat’. It doesn’t act as an adjective; it just happens to be the case that English allows for noun-noun compounds, despite the misguided elementary school perspective of “Anything that ‘modifies’ a noun is an adjective” or whatnot. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/7 "2009-08-15T19:11:10Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > (On edit: There’s no point adopting an analysis under which there is an “implied noun” of “color” in “red evokes passion”; that path leads nowhere useful. Far better to just accept that “red” can itself be employed as a noun and is serving capably in that role in that sentence) There’s nothing unusual about words taking on new parts of speech as usage evolves, especially with new technology. English speakers won’t hesitate make a verb out of something which beforehand didn’t serve that purpose: “_I IMed you last night. Why didn’t you respond?_.” Or adjectives to nouns: “_I couldn’t take the crazy, so I went home early_.” People rarely bat an eyelash at such usage. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/8 "2009-08-15T19:14:04Z")
> [@johnpost](#): > > there is a point if it is an answer and that is useful. > > yes red may be a noun that means ‘the color red’ > > color being an implied noun and red an adjective also provides an answer. > > even might be both. In the phrase “the color red”, the word “red” does not serve as an adjective… You are correct that “red” may be used a noun, with the same meaning as “the color red” or “the color of red things” or whatever. This does not mean it is useful to analyze sentences containing the noun “red” as mere abbreviations for an implicit underlying sentence containing such an expanded phrase, any more than it is useful to consider the sentence “I enjoy rock” as containing an implicit noun “music”, an implicit “listening to” or “the sound of”, an implicit “and roll”, or whatever. Sure, the meaning’s the same, but the syntactic analysis gets confused once you force yourself to invoke phantoms to explain these kinds of constructions, rather than confronting them straight-up. But whatever. I was only taking issue with the way you presented your point, I suppose, and not so much with the simple point you were making. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/9 "2009-08-15T19:15:21Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > There’s nothing unusual about words taking on new parts of speech as usage evolves, especially with new technology. English speakers won’t hesitate make a verb out of something which beforehand didn’t serve that purpose: “_I IMed you last night. Why didn’t you respond?_.” Or adjectives to nouns: “_I couldn’t take the crazy, so I went home early_.” People rarely bat an eyelash at such usage. I agree with you, of course, as I said in my post prior to the portion you quoted. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/10 "2009-08-15T19:19:38Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > The verb “to be” has magical grammatical properties that most other verbs do not\*\* however, which means it takes a complement, not a direct object… I actually don’t even refer to it as a verb when training new teachers, so they get the idea that it’s a different kind of animal entirely. (It doesn’t take do-support, except in the imperative, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/11 "2009-08-15T19:31:37Z")
There is something called a “noun adjunct”. [Noun adjunct - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct) > [@](#): > > In grammar, a noun adjunct or attributive noun or noun premodifier is a noun that modifies another noun and is optional — meaning that it can be removed without changing the grammar of the sentence. For example, in the phrase “chicken soup” the noun adjunct “chicken” modifies the noun “soup”. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-speech-are-colors/506540/12 "2009-08-15T19:41:25Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > There is something called a “noun adjunct”. [Noun adjunct - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct) Yes, the terminology changes. However, the OP’s question underscores an important point regarding this. As **Indistinguishable** says, a word (in English, at least) doesn’t necessary hold some kind of intrinsic character that makes it function as it does. Words acquire their functions through the manner in which people use them. The Wiki article obliquely addresses this: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] Expressions with plural possessives are increasingly interpreted as compound nouns with a plural noun adjunct even in cases where this is incorrect because the form cannot be interpreted as not being a possessive, e.g., “mens club” for “men’s club”.[4] Fowler’s Modern English Usage states in the section “POSSESSIVE PUZZLES”: "6. Five years’ imprisonment, Three weeks’ holiday, etc… [/QUOTE] So you can take a “three-week holiday” or a “three weeks’ holiday.” Who knows, we might see people spending ten dollars bills some day.