Is "run" a noun or a verb?

[Donnadogsoth]

Take the word "run". What type of word is it? It's a verb, isn't it? But a verb is a thing, and things are nouns, so doesn't that mean "run" is also a noun? Doesn't that mean all words are nouns?

Colour me perplexed. Any thoughts?

[Lethologica]

"Run" is both a verb and a noun, but that is because it has (multiple) noun meanings, like "I went for a run," or "the coinflipper had a run of heads."

A noun is not a word that is a thing (since, as you note, all words are something)--it is a word that denotes a thing. "Write" is a verb, and also a thing, but it is not a word that denotes a thing, so it is not a noun.

[Yuki Akuma]

Are you seriously suggesting that all words are nouns? Do you think the entire linguistic community has got it wrong?

It's somewhat unfortunate you decided to choose a verb that is also a noun. Most verbs, however, aren't nouns. In fact, it could be argued that the verb "to run" and the noun "run" aren't actually the same word, but that's getting a bit far into the philosophy of language...

A noun is an object*. A verb is an action. Verbs are not objects, they're things that objects do.

Now, it could be argued that the names of words are nouns, but that requires separating the name of a word from the identity of the word itself and that's getting weird. Kinda going off into "do words exist" territory, which gets almost as confusing as "do numbers exist"...

*'Object' also including person, animal, activity and place. Not every noun is actually something you can touch.

[Lethologica]

Are you seriously suggesting that all words are nouns? Do you think the entire linguistic community has got it wrong?
That's kind of an odd way to put it. Donnadogsoth gave it as a question, and said he was perplexed, and didn't say anything about anyone else "getting it wrong".

[Donnadogsoth]

"Run" is both a verb and a noun, but that is because it has (multiple) noun meanings, like "I went for a run," or "the coinflipper had a run of heads."

A noun is not a word that is a thing (since, as you note, all words are something)--it is a word that denotes a thing. "Write" is a verb, and also a thing, but it is not a word that denotes a thing, so it is not a noun.

I meant, as I thought was obvious, "run" as in "to run". But this question isn't obvious to me so I should strive to be more obvious.

I learned, long ago, that a noun was a "person, place, or thing". Well, words are things, so all words should be nouns. So shouldn't verbs be special cases of nouns that, as you say, denote things, specifically actions?

[Yuki Akuma]

The question of whether words are, in fact, actually things is a somewhat open one.

But if they are, a word's quality of being a noun or a verb is a 'physical' trait of that word - asking if a verb is really a noun is like asking if a red balloon is actually blue.

I think the problem here is that the word 'thing' is really vague.

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you seriously suggesting that all words are nouns? Do you think the entire linguistic community has got it wrong?

It's somewhat unfortunate you decided to choose a verb that is also a noun. Most verbs, however, aren't nouns. In fact, it could be argued that the verb "to run" and the noun "run" aren't actually the same word, but that's getting a bit far into the philosophy of language...

A noun is an object*. A verb is an action. Verbs are not objects, they're things that objects do.

Now, it could be argued that the names of words are nouns, but that requires separating the name of a word from the identity of the word itself and that's getting weird. Kinda going off into "do words exist" territory, which gets almost as confusing as "do numbers exist"...

*'Object' also including person, animal, activity and place. Not every noun is actually something you can touch.

The boldfaced stuff sounds more like it. But I'm not sure I agree. A word itself, the identity part, is a thing, as in "person, place, or thing" and therefore should be a noun, even if it isn't a noun. So both the name of the word and the identity of the word itself are nouns, so now we have two nouns per word. And if we view them together as a group that's a third noun. Help!

[erikun]

I think you might be getting your linguistics crossed a bit.

First, the word "run" has multiple meanings. Some of those meanings are verbs, some of those meanings are nouns. "A run" refers to a specific activity (the action of running) along with several other things (a number of successive identical variables in a game of chance, a tear in a pair of stockings) and so the word is a noun. "To run" refers to some specific action (movement by rapidly stepping between legs) along with some others (the act of tearing a pair of stockings) and so a different definition of the word is a verb.

Please note that it is the different definitions that make "run" both a verb and a noun. Run has one defintion, which is a noun definition, which is what makes it a noun. Run has a different defintion, which is a verb definition, which is what makes it a verb. People say "run is both a noun and a verb" to convey this, rather than implying there is something special about the run-verb definition that qualifies it as a noun as well.


The general rule is something like "things are nouns and actions are verbs" but I'm sure the more specific definition is that nouns are the subjects/objects of a sentence while verbs are the verbs of a sentence - the required part linking a sentence together. Nouns are the "things" while verbs are the "actions". Just because a word is an action and has a definition does not make it a thing or a valid subject/object in a sentence, though. You cannot have "a have", for example. "A be" cannot take an action upon something. (Note that "a do" is another word for a hairdo, and so you can have "a do", although it is unrelated to the verb "to do".)

One last thing to note - and perhaps this is causing confusion - is that you can use a word as an object without referring to the word's meaning. That is, the sentences What does the word "life" mean? and What does life mean? are different sentences, because one is asking about the meaning of the word while the other is asking about the meaning of the object (that is, the meaning of life itself). I think that, in the rare instance where you would see an otherwise-always verb as an object, this would be the reason why.
Can you really use "be" in that situation?
Do you have one too many "haves" in that sentence?
What is the definition of "sicken"?
I think that, in each case, what is really being said is "the word ___" rather than using the verb itself. That is, Do you have one too many of the word "have" in that sentence? In that case, the object is really "the word" and the verb-word being specifically which word. So while the word itself may be a thing which can be an object in a sentence, this does not mean that whatever the word defines is capable of being an object as well. And a dictionary is concerned about the definition of the words, not in the tricky or unusual ways in which words, in general, can be used.

[Yuki Akuma]

One last thing to note - and perhaps this is causing confusion - is that you can use a word as an object without referring to the word's meaning. That is, the sentences What does the word "life" mean? and What does life mean? are different sentences, because one is asking about the meaning of the word while the other is asking about the meaning of the object (that is, the meaning of life itself). I think that, in the rare instance where you would see an otherwise-always verb as an object, this would be the reason why.
Can you really use "be" in that situation?
Do you have one too many "haves" in that sentence?
What is the definition of "sicken"?
I think that, in each case, what is really being said is "the word ___" rather than using the verb itself. That is, Do you have one too many of the word "have" in that sentence? In that case, the object is really "the word" and the verb-word being specifically which word. So while the word itself may be a thing which can be an object in a sentence, this does not mean that whatever the word defines is capable of being an object as well. And a dictionary is concerned about the definition of the words, not in the tricky or unusual ways in which words, in general, can be used.

Noun-phrases are weird.

[Lethologica]

I meant, as I thought was obvious, "run" as in "to run". But this question isn't obvious to me so I should strive to be more obvious.
I understand. I initially used "eat" in my first comment, then remembered that "eat" has a noun form. I don't think there's a noun form of "write". Nonetheless, I don't think it changes anything in my comment.


I learned, long ago, that a noun was a "person, place, or thing". Well, words are things, so all words should be nouns. So shouldn't verbs be special cases of nouns that, as you say, denote things, specifically actions?
A noun denotes a person, place, or thing. It is not a person, place, or thing itself. Your friend Charlie is a person, but he is not a noun. The word "Charlie" is a noun, because it denotes the person Charlie. The word "run" is not a noun, because it does not denote a person, place or thing. That is still true even though the word is, itself, a thing (for grammatical purposes--I will forgo the discussion over whether words really truly count as "things").

[Tvtyrant]

The word run is a noun, just as the word verb is a noun.

[Frozen_Feet]

As with any other homonyms, the answer is "both" (or just "yes" if you're a logician), and all the deeper linguistic-philosophical pondering is trying too hard. :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

And the number of such examples is legion.

That's english for you. :smalltongue:

[Corlindale]

I am reminded of this exchange from Through the Looking Glass:

The name of the song is called "Haddocks' Eyes."'
'Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel interested.
'No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. 'That's what the name is called. The name really is "The Aged Aged Man."'
'Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called"?' Alice corrected herself.
'No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called "Ways and Means": but that's only what it's called, you know!'
'Well, what is the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
'I was coming to that,' the Knight said. 'The song really is "A-sitting On A Gate": and the tune's my own invention.'

I think erikun explained it best. In niche cases you use words at a meta-level to mean "the WORD x", in which case they can behave somewhat like nouns gramatically. "The a car is black" is wrong, but "You should remove either the "a" or the "the" in the previous sentence to correct it" is fine.

I don't disagree that "run" can be both a noun and a verb in its regular sense, of course, but that just happens to be the case. Quite a few common English words are like that.

[factotum]

I learned, long ago, that a noun was a "person, place, or thing". Well, words are things, so all words should be nouns. So shouldn't verbs be special cases of nouns that, as you say, denote things, specifically actions?

It would be more appropriate to say that nouns are words that name things, not that are things in themselves...so the word "noun" is itself a noun, for instance, as is the word "word".

[Telonius]

Calvin had some related thoughts (http://assets.amuniversal.com/6077da402b5e01300649001dd8b71c47).

[Red Fel]

The boldfaced stuff sounds more like it. But I'm not sure I agree. A word itself, the identity part, is a thing, as in "person, place, or thing" and therefore should be a noun, even if it isn't a noun. So both the name of the word and the identity of the word itself are nouns, so now we have two nouns per word. And if we view them together as a group that's a third noun. Help!

If it helps, think of the word itself as an arrow, and the meaning of the word as the concept at which the arrow points.

Examples:
Cat. The word cat is a thing, a noun, which points to a cat, which is also a noun.
Agile. The word agile is a thing, a noun, but it points to a description, agile, which is an adjective.
Climb. The word climb is a thing, a noun, but it points to an action, to climb, which is a verb.
Swiftly. The word swiftly is a thing, a noun, but it points to the manner in which an action is performed, swiftly, which is an adverb.
So, you have the sentence, "The agile cat climbed swiftly," in which you have a bunch of words, each of which is a noun, but only one of them points to a noun (cat); the rest are other parts of speech, and point to non-noun concepts.

Do you verb my noun adverbly?

[Lethologica]

And the part erikun is talking about is how to reference the pointer itself.

[Donnadogsoth]

If it helps, think of the word itself as an arrow, and the meaning of the word as the concept at which the arrow points.

Examples:
Cat. The word cat is a thing, a noun, which points to a cat, which is also a noun.
Agile. The word agile is a thing, a noun, but it points to a description, agile, which is an adjective.
Climb. The word climb is a thing, a noun, but it points to an action, to climb, which is a verb.
Swiftly. The word swiftly is a thing, a noun, but it points to the manner in which an action is performed, swiftly, which is an adverb.
So, you have the sentence, "The agile cat climbed swiftly," in which you have a bunch of words, each of which is a noun, but only one of them points to a noun (cat); the rest are other parts of speech, and point to non-noun concepts.

Do you verb my noun adverbly?

Indeed I do, and thank you. But the next problem is that verbs, adverbs, and adjectives are all concepts, so how can they be themselves if they are concepts?

The answer to that I can supply myself, with a biology metaphor: "concept" is the genus, "specific concept" is the species. So just as all words (species) are nouns (genus), so all specific concepts such as verbs, adjectives and adverbs (species all) are concepts (genus).

[Grek]

Run (the word meaning to move quickly using legs) and "Run" (the word represented by the letters R, U and N in that order) do not refer to the same concept. The former concept is a verb and the latter concept is a noun. For clarity you'd use a construction like "the word run" when talking about the noun.

[Eldariel]

I mean, the infinitive is "a run" vs. "to run" anyways. Whether or not they're the same lexical entry is not all that clear; one could argue the two are two completely different words derived from the same root but the prototypical analysis would still place them under the same umbrella as different senses of the same word. There are actually languages where large segments of the vocabulary behave identically and occur in both, noun and verb roles, and whether one considers them separate lexical entries is largely a matter of preference for whichever linguist happens to describe the language. Neurological evidence generally points towards them being a similar entry, for what it's worth. If this topic interests you further, send me a PM and I can send you an article by Evans & Osada about Mundari, a language the missionaries originally describing the language as potentially not having noun/verb separation (turns out that's not exactly the case). To be clear, on a global level it's not that strange for a language to lack e.g. adjectives, adverbs, numerals or pronouns in the sense they'd be described in English. However, a distinction between actions and non-actions seems to be present in basically all known languages. Indeed, it's rather typical for e.g. adjectives to be verbs or nouns in a language; some languages have different nouns for different types of e.g. people (one for "a poor person" and another one for "a rich person") while some use clauses with verbs to simply say "a man be.poor" when they refer to "a poor man".

But yes, English features a lot of superficial similarity between verbs and nouns and members of the other are constantly being derived from the other. A British acquaintance of mine said they're now using "to trouser" as a term for "to pocket" (in the sense "to steal by placing the object in your pocket") in England. Words in general though are salient through reference. Much like concepts in our mind tend to have real world counterparts, words refer to objects in our mind. The exact mechanisms are actually still a bit unclear, but ultimately everybody's words mean slightly different things much like everybody's concepts of any given thing tend to be slightly different. Still, they're close enough that we can comprehend them in communication and words gain their meaning essentially in social interaction (spoken words anyways, which is the ur-medium for language; written language is a different sort of a phenomenon altogether).

Essentially, a word (or a comparable unit) is associated with a mental construct and all its phenomena and the surrounding lexical field (related words). A word can thus be used to access the whole it stands for (and they make "slow" thinking and conceptualisation much easier). Further there are associations to its surface information: that is, information about the guise of the word, its spelling/pronunciation (the difference thereof can be used to argue that written and spoken English are actually two different languages), its etymology, et cetera. Of course, such information is not automatic - you don't need to know a word's etymology or even its spelling to use it perfectly. However, if learnt it most likely gets tacked onto the whole complex that is the lexical entry of the word or concept.

[Vinyadan]

Take the word "run". What type of word is it? It's a verb, isn't it? But a verb is a thing, and things are nouns, so doesn't that mean "run" is also a noun? Doesn't that mean all words are nouns?

Colour me perplexed. Any thoughts?

Many names in Germanic languages were built on the same structure as the past form of the strong (irregular) verb. English doesn't seem to work that way, although there sure are some examples. Anyway, words don't exist on their own. Run is a verb when used as a verb, and a noun when used as a noun (on the basic level, "I run" and "I won the run").
However, the case you mean, where a verb is used as a name (I like stealing!) is possible because infinitives are a category of verbal names and adjectives. -ing as participle present and -ed as past participle build verbal adjectives, while -ing as gerundium and the base form (?), as well as the "to run" form, are used to build verbal names, when you want to talk about that verb.
I'm loving -> present participle, the loved one -> passive participle, I'm having troubles at finding a use of past participle outside periphrastic forms (there are some "that said" as "having said that", but they look like mistranslations, and "that" looks more like the passive subject than the past object).
Loving is beautiful, It's beautiful to love something, -> verbal names. You can use these forms as names, while keeping their meaning as verbs.

[freezingfox]

i thought it was just a verb

[rajgupta]

verb......

[Beleriphon]

I meant, as I thought was obvious, "run" as in "to run". But this question isn't obvious to me so I should strive to be more obvious.

I learned, long ago, that a noun was a "person, place, or thing". Well, words are things, so all words should be nouns. So shouldn't verbs be special cases of nouns that, as you say, denote things, specifically actions?

A word is a thing, which makes it a noun. So if we were to be discussing the word "run" then yes run is a noun in context of discussing what the word means. But in syntax the word "run" is a verb if we are referring to the idea of a person running to the store.

Run is a bit of a strange example:

"I'm going to run to the store" and "I'm going for a run" are both correct. The first run acts a verb to indicate what I'm doing, while the second it indicates where I'm going.

[Jay R]

"Run" is a verb.

Now consider that sentence. The subject of a sentence must be a noun, noun phrase, or pronoun. What is the subject of the above sentence?

Obviously, it is the word "run".

But we need to maintain the difference between using a word and referring to the word. In usage, the word "run" is a verb. When we we refer to it, we are referring to the thing, and that is a noun.

[Razade]

Take the word "run". What type of word is it? It's a verb, isn't it? But a verb is a thing, and things are nouns, so doesn't that mean "run" is also a noun? Doesn't that mean all words are nouns?

Colour me perplexed. Any thoughts?

The question is wrong at the start. Verbs aren't things. They explain the action of things. Unless you mean thing as it's something that exists. The word verb is a noun. But words that are verbs are not nouns. They're verbs.

[Kislath]

Then there are the weird bits, like when it's used as a partial adjective, as in "run-down."

Then there's "running," which is a gerund.

I just figured I'd toss those out there for the fun of it.

[enderlord99]

“Run” is a verb, though there it has homonyms which are nouns. ““Run”” is a noun, just as “verb” is a noun. Words are pointers, and may be pointed at themselves by enclosing them in quotation marks.

My uses of “““Run””” and similar linguistic constructions within this post are similar to what programmers call a “True Backslash” though it is, obviously, a “True set of Quotes” instead.

[Crow]

Both depending on context.

Run, you fool!

I need to run down to the store.

When it is sunny out, I take my dog for a run.

I had company over, so my dog had to stay in the run.

[BannedInSchool]

Both depending on context.

We verb nouns and noun verbs.

English: Pointing and Grunting With Words :smalltongue:

[laotze]

Welcome to English, where we don't just do binary meaning but ternary, quaternary, quinary, senary, goddamn plenary meaning.

[EarlGreystoke]

Well.
That certainly wasn't where I had anticipated this thread going.

[srgtsilent]

english is wierd

[Fawkes]

Of all the stupid, pointless internet discussions I've seen, this is certainly one of them.