Talk:Adjective

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to theoretical linguistics and theories of language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 The list is a little bit annoying 2 Does anyone know where the rule for adjective order is written? 3 General usage guide 4 Plural forms + adjective after the noun 5 scientific classification of adjectives 6 Contradictory statements 7 A, the, this, that 8 Comparison with/of adjectives 9 is there a list 10 Examples 11 "Chinese has no adjectives" 12 "Chinese has adjectives!" 13 Examples at top 14 Grammar 15 Absolute use. 16 Incomplete sentence in wiki 17 Recognition of adjectives as a word class 18 Note about Adjectival 19 Articles should have "Adjectives in English" section 20 Are numbers adjectives? 21 Consistency Needed When Referencing Different Languages 22 Compound nouns 23 Hebrew example 24 I remember... 25 English adjective vs. adjective in general

[edit] The list is a little bit annoying

The list is a little bit annoying, esp. if you want to print the article. --zeno 09:49, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree. Anyone else in favor of moving the list to a separate page? It's not relevant to the topic of "adjective" as a whole, since it only lists English adjectives (and only certain obscure ones, at that). It clutters up the page and doesn't provide useful, general information. —Bkell 21:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As a writer, I find the list very helpful but I would not have a problem with it being moved to another page. Could another user make it so? Cormac Canales

[edit] Does anyone know where the rule for adjective order is written?

I added the external link for a little more info, but I still don't know the source of the rule, if indeed it exists. Spalding 16:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC) I added one too. Especially for the countdowns. The source of the rule is that there is no so rule. The basic concept is canonical in that the sequence of adjective begins with subjectivity and ends closest to the head noun with the most objective one. This particulary attribute of the english language is probably the reason for its prevelance around the world. What are the criteria for subjective and objective??? Well that is cognitive science, neuro-linguistics or the such like and other hocus-pocus that all neatly fit into the classification of English Grammar . --SteveKopp 13:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)stevekopp

I don't think I follow your comment. You seem upset that there are exceptions and complications in the application of English grammar to actual production. That is certainly true but in no way distinguishes English from any other language. It's common for people, when learning another language, to be dismayed with the rules, sub-rules, exceptions, "maybes" and "it depends": this holds if one is learning English or Chinese or Tamil or French or Guarani. It's common for people to insist that their own mother tongues are more regular or transparent than the target language, but this seems unlikely. If it's true that English, say, is so much more irregular than other languages (it has more "hocus pocus" as you put it) that runs up against two problems. First, how is it that English speakers master the grammar at about the same age as speakers in all human languages, from 4 to 6 years of age? Second, such claims that other languages (French, German, what have you) are far more regular are contradicted by linguistic research. Despite the efforts of the Académie française, for example, linguists are able to find all kinds of changes, irregularities, innovations in French speech. Interlingua ^{talk email} 03:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Adjective order

As a french-speaking reader of English, I've been taught at school adjectives always come before the noun they qualify, like in ‘a great actor’ or ‘a big man’ etc. Why is it then that one finds expressions like ‘the sum total’ or '... an emergent worldview for the field overall" (why not "... an emergent worldview for the overall field"?) I've been wondering about that for YEARS! Who will solve this enigma for me?

[edit] General usage guide

I found the section on the comparative and superlative as rather unhelpful in giving the reader some insight into when to use "-er/-est" and when to use "more/most". About four years ago there was a lot of discussion about this on alt.usage.english. The whole area of the use of "er/est" and "more/most" is very confused. I have done a lot of research trying to get a clearer picture of the situation for myself. The problem is that there are bits and pieces all over the place but I have not seen any complete coverage anywhere and there is not universal agreement. At that time I provided some general usage guidance which was favourably received and I got a number of personal emails about it. I have added it with a few minor changes as a subheading within the section. It summarises my reading and may be helpful in clarifying the situation. --Drjdcollins 11:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plural forms + adjective after the noun

Hi, I'm a non-native English speaker and I'm puzzled by some of the form of adjective (or rather noun used as adjectives). For example, one should say "a three year old" but "he's three yearS old". I looked at various grammar books, and it's hard to find the information.

Also I found something funny that I had never paid attention to. Sometime the adjective is after the noun in English, for example, one says 'Attorney General' and not 'General Attorney'.

Strange, huh?

I can reformulate the books I have if you think I should.

Tony

As a french-speaking reader of English, I've been taught at school adjectives always come before the noun they qualify, like in ‘a great actor’ or ‘a big man’ etc. Why is it then that one finds expressions like ‘the sum total’ or '... an emergent worldview for the field overall" (why not "... an emergent worldview for the overall field"?) I've been wondering about that for YEARS! Who will solve this enigma for me?

Aleksi.

I'm a native English speaker, and I'd like to have someone explain that to me as well. When we say "he is 1.82 metres tall", what exactly are the parts of speech of "metres and of "tall"?

Then, when we say "the 1.82 metre tall man" with no "s", what are the parts of speech of "metre", of "tall"? The "man" is clearly a noun here. Gene Nygaard 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Tall" is an adjective; "1.82 metre(s)" is a noun acting as a complement to "tall". I think historically, the reason we drop the "-s" sometimes has something to do with the Old English genitive case, but at this point it's just The Way It Is. —Ruakh_TALK 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying "metres" in the first example is an adjective, and "metre" in the second example is an adjective. Or, in Bruguier/Tony's examples, in the first example "years" is an adjective modifying "old" and has an "s", and in the second example "year" is an adjective modifying "old" and it doesn't have an "s".

No wonder native speakers as well as non-native speakers get confused. Can anybody offer any more specific reasoning? Gene Nygaard 23:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misread my comment. I'm saying that "metres" in the first example is a noun, and "metre" in the second example is a noun. —Ruakh_TALK 23:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes even less sense; the nouns shoud have plural "s", and the adjectives should not. Gene Nygaard 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the adjectives don't have plural "s". As for why the noun doesn't always have a plural "s", *shrug* it's how the language works. Historically, it had to do with Old English plural genitive forms,^[1] but I can't explain why this particular feature of Old English survived when so many related features did not. It's just how it is. —Ruakh_TALK 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scientific classification of adjectives

I need help with the classification of adjectives and i've been looking over some texts and articles and found only the following but i'm not sure if it's the correct classification

DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVES

RELATIONAL ADJECTIVES

OR

DESCRIPTIVE

LIMITING

PREDICATE

VERBALS

DEGREES

ARTICLES

If anyone know which one is correct thanks i need it to finish a MINDMAP in a conceptual pedagogy school. Thanks a lot

[edit] Contradictory statements

This article currently says:

"Some adjectives can't function as a predicate: They can only occur in attributive position."

and later:

"English is unusual in that it allows nouns to be used attributively... These are not adjectives, as they cannot be used predicatively.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In the first instance it allows that some adjectives are not predicative, then it claims that attributive nouns can't be adjectives because they are not predicative. I am not expert enough to know how to fix this. Maybe someone can?

I tried to make my understanding of this a bit clearer. I think words like former, main and alone are atypical adjectives, but adjective is the word class that they fit best with. Georgia fits best with the word class noun. Gailtb 11:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sure, I think everyone would agree that "Georgia" usually functions as a noun. However, very many words (e.g. red, dark, high etc. etc.) can function as both nouns and adjectives, and the question here is whether or not "Georgia" is actually functioning as an adjective in constructions such as "Georgia pear". The article claims that it can't be because it cannot be used predicatively, but this is blown apart by the earlier statement that not all adjectives can be used predicatively. I still don't think it makes sense. Matt 11:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC).

• Then it's a difference in usage of the words adjective and noun. For me they are word classes: a word is a noun or an adjective; it can't function as a noun or adjective. But a noun can function as a modifier ie adjectivally (spelling?). There's an important difference. Please can someone more knowledgeable help out? (PS That's not really what the definition of adjective which is given here says, so I may be wrong.) Gailtb 17:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert in grammar, but every dictionary I've even seen says that words can function as different types of speech. To give just one of countless examples, the Collins English Dictionary entry for "green" lists n., followed by the meanings of "green" as a noun; then adj., followed by the meanings of "green" as an adjective; then vb. followed by the meanings of "green" as a verb. As far as I am aware this is standard. Matt 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

A linguist would say that that that example is really 2 or 3 different (but related) words, not one word functioning in 3 different ways! Gailtb 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not precisely. In the same way that biological species are distinguished by their ancestry (genetics), words are distinguished by their ancestry (etymology). The word is the same, but it has different functions in different contexts. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to ignore (for the moment) the terms "noun" and "adjective" altogether, and substitute something like "nominal" (a word that can be used to name an entity) and "descriptive" (a word that can be used to describe an entity). I can't think of any words that can't have descriptive function (English is especially good at compounding nominals), and there are at most very few words that can't have nominal function. Of the three examples above (former, main, alone), main can indeed be used nominally, at least in the idiom in the main. Whether a word "is" a noun or an adjective would, I suppose, depend on whether it's usually used descriptively (adjectives) or nominally (noun). But I'm not really happy (except in the context of introductory grammar) saying that a word "is" a particular part of speech. -- MatthewDBA 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. I didn't know that. (But the problem still remains because, taking this view, there is nothing to stop one word "Georgia" being a noun, and another (related) word "Georgia" being an adjective?). Matt 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

"Low" and "dark" are indeed both nouns and adjectives, but only because they're originally pure adjectives ("lower", "darkest"). "Georgia pear" is a compound noun, not adjective+noun as indiciated by the existance of "Georgian pear", culturual implications aside. It's no different from "toilet seat", "jackknife" or "homesick". That a non-adjective might be slightly reminiscent of the function of an adjective (as in modifying a noun) doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for consideration as one. Keep in mind that while English is very inconsistent in writing compounds as one or two words, this is not the case with most other Germanic languages.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if the following is going to sound (unintentionally) pedantic, but:

• English is unusual in that it allows nouns to be used attributively... These are not adjectives, as they cannot be used predicatively.

This statement is true. In the phrase "the information society", "information" is a noun used attributively to "society". This does not, however, make it an adjective: it is an attributive noun (which obviously cannot be used predicatively, as in the hypothetical *"Our present-day society is information.")

• Some adjectives can't function as a predicate: They can only occur in attributive position.

This, again, is true, as the examples indicate. However, these adjectives are a-typical, and there do not seem to be a great many of them. They are exceptions to the general rule that most adjectives can be used predicatively, a rule which does not apply to any attributive nouns -- as far as I'm aware. Bessel Dekker 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The choice of words is not extremely good. Saying that most English adjectives are predicative is correct, but saying that they can function as predicates might be wrong. An English predicate, in this case, would be made up of an adjective plus a copula or some other verb like turn or make or look. The adjective predicates through the copula. This is different from the case of e.g. Japanese, where one of the types of "adjectives", which is actually analyzed as a class of stative verbs, can be a predicate by itself.

The two seemingly contradictory statements cited above can be confusing for the reader. Saying that X is not an adjective because it cannot be used predicatively sounds as if predicative use were a necessary condition for X to be considered an adjective. My two cents anyway... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Words are not static. Word classes are ideals; they do not exist outside a grammatical analysis. There are 'good' examples of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc which closely match a prototype, but many that are not so clear. Many linguists come up with tests to determine which category a word belongs to. This can be a very (a) frustrating or (b) interesting (take your pick) because it proves to be impossible to come up with tests that are reliable. It's not that green is two words, noun and adjective, but rather that it doesn't consistantly match either category. Heavily inflecting languages like Greek are often clearer, because the morphology is often unambiguous (often, not always!), but the more a language relies on syntax to define a word, the vaguer the categories become. kwami 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A, the, this, that

Who says these are adjectives? Can whoever wrote that cite their source for suggesting it? I don't know who the "some grammarians" are meant to be. This seems like original research to me.

Try this source to start with: [2] Logophile 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But that source explains that "this," "that," etc. are demonstrative adjectives. "A," and "the" are not demonstrative adjectives according to the source.Kronocide 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with/of adjectives

The subhead "Comparison with adjectives" seems to me misleading: what do we compare adjectives with? Instead, as far as I'm aware the positive-comparative-superlative series is always referred to as the "Comparison of adjecives". Admitteldly, I have checked this with one source only: Quirk et al., A Grammar of Contemporary English. Bessel Dekker 04:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the term adjectival comparison in the theoretical literature. mitcho/芳貴 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is there a list

Hi - new guy in the consumer products business. Is there a list (English) of nouns that can't be used as an adjective? This is tied into the following "Use of a trademark as anything other than an adjective is incorrect".

No, there is not. Conceivably, any noun could be used as an attributive adjective (the kind that goes before the noun, such as any, attributive, and this in this sentence). Coca-Cola is a registered tradmark: "I like Coca-Cola": just used it as a noun. It's perfectly fine. You can use the same word as an adjective: "We asked about Coca-Cola sales." President Lethe 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

Are all the examples supposed to be the same? - FrancisTyers · 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, clarify your question. If you're asking whether it is intended that the examples of attributive, predicative, and post-positive adjectives in the box near the top of the article all use the same sentence, the answer is Yes. In each version of the sentence, the appropriate type of adjective is in bold type. — President Lethe 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Chinese has no adjectives"

"Chinese languages have no adjectives; all the words that are translated into English as adjectives are, in fact, stative verbs." Is this right? Doesn't this need to be qualified somehow? The Chinese word for "large" 大 is not a stative verb is it? Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Same as in Japanese. 大 is a stative verb meaning "to be large", which is why it doesn't need a copula after it. When used before a noun, it is in fact working as a subordinate clause (e.g. "a house that is large"), which in Chinese is placed before the noun it modifies, rather than after it as in English. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Chinese has adjectives!"

Chinese has adjectives! Why it says "Chinese languages have no adjectives"? How come? I don't agree with it at all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calvinli (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 July 2006.

Linguists don't agree with you. See above. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples at top

In the top box of examples, I don't think "all" should be used as an example of attributive adjective use. First of all, because I am of the point of view that "all" isn't an adjective but rather a particular kind of determiner. Secondly, even if one does hold that determiners in general, or quantifiers like "all" in particular, are adjectives, I feel it would be more illustrative and useful to to give a more conventional, so to speak, example of attributive adjective use. -Chinju 02:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Is the grammer wrong in this sentence:

"Lets head home," said broke and discouraged Jessica.

or should it be this:

"Lets head home," said the broke and discouraged Jessica.

In other words, do you have to put a the in front of the adjective(s)?

[edit] Absolute use.

One of my French grammar books talks about three uses of adjectives: « l'adjectif épithète », the attributive adjective; « l'adjectif attribu », the predicative adjective; and « l'adjectif apposé », as in "Angry, he slammed the door." This thid use should definitely be added to the article, but I'm loath to do it myself without knowing the proper English term. (I'm assuming it's something to do with the word "absolute", à la noun absolute, absolute phrase, etc., but I don't know quite the right permutation.) Does anyone know it? Ruakh 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete sentence in wiki

Someone please finish it, if you know what it was supposed to mean, or remove/rephrase. Then you can delete my comment. The incomplete sentence is the last one in this paragraph:

An attributive adjective is part of the noun phrase headed by the noun it modifies; for example, in the noun phrase the big book, the attributive adjective big modifies the noun book, which heads the phrase. In the Germanic languages, including English, attributive adjectives commonly precede their nouns, though some English adjectives — such as aplenty, elect, galore, and proper — follow their nouns, and some fixed expressions — such as attorney general, court martial, and knight errant — use postpositioned adjectives. In many languages, however, attributive adjectives typically follow their nouns, and some languages.

[edit] Recognition of adjectives as a word class

The article says:

"However, adjectives are not a universally recognized word class; in other words, some languages do not have any adjectives. The Chinese languages, for example, have no adjectives; all the words that are translated into English as adjectives are, in fact, stative verbs."

This doesn't make any sense to me. The statement "adjectives are not a universally recognized word class" means, to me, that some linguists don't accept the concept of adjectives as a word class at all (whatever the language). The stuff about some languages not having them is written as if it's supposed to be supportive of this statement, but I don't see that it is. I don't see how the absence of adjectives in, say, Chinese has any direct bearing on whether the concept of an adjective is "universally recognised" for those languages that do. Matt 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

I agree with your analysis; this should be fixed. Ruakh 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

me too because the right is me not you........... its me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikared78 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note about Adjectival

I have changed the page at Adjectival to be a disambig page between the terms adjective (the old redirect) and adjectival noun. Just wanted to let everyone know. Thanks. - grubber 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles should have "Adjectives in English" section

Currently, this article really mixes information about adjectives in English with information about adjectives cross-linguistically, and in many places I think it's unclear whether a given statement is true of English specifically or of languages in general.

To address this, I think this page should have two content sections: "Adjectives in English" and "Adjectives in other languages" (discussing other languages in general, taking examples from a variety of languages). The lead text would be unaffected by this change, as would the non-content sections ("See also", "Bibliography", etc.).

I think this would also have the benefit of starting with a section that's more easily accessible to all readers and, once they have a bit of understanding of the complexities, the next section can assume that level of understanding.

Thoughts?

—Ruakh_TALK 04:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are numbers adjectives?

I realize that there are many differnt discussions of numbers in the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number but are numbers considered adjectives?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.33.162 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

In English, the counting numbers (1, 2, 3, …) are determiners, and can act either as adjectives or as pronouns. —Ruakh_TALK 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency Needed When Referencing Different Languages

Although interesting to hear how adjectives work in different languages, because initially, specific languages are not (always) cited-- the references become confusing at points.

• • The confusing passages are clustered more towards the early part of the article-- later in the body of the work there is more clarity and abundance of exact language references and concrete examples.

But the earlier parts are confusing-- for example, I am trying to better learn how adjectives work in English, but I can't (always) tell from this article which usages apply to English or even what specific language they do apply to.

Later in the article extensive English examples are given-- (very helpful) but the initial references to 'other languages' and 'some languages' need to be clarified at points with specific examples of languages or language groups.

It's nice to be inclusive and cover more than just English-- but without consistent use of examples, or at least some refeerence to languages or language groups, there is no way to apply the information and confusion is created about where various uses do / do not apply.

Sean7phil 18:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compound nouns

The Columbia Guide to SAE's view on this seems a bit idiosyncratic. I don't see any actual grammatical basis for their distinction, and it is possible to find references where all of their examples would be treated as compound nouns. Anyway, I think the term "compound noun" should at least be mentioned. Cadr 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see any actual grammatical basis for [the Columbia Guide's] distinction" between compound nouns and not: see http://www.bartleby.com/68/98/1398.html.

The thing is, the top hits on Google all define "compound noun" roughly the same way that I do and that the Columbia Guide seems to: if I may paraphrase, then something like "a single 'word' that's composed of multiple 'words', and that's a noun". They don't require that all components be nouns — something like hot dog would count — and do generally require that the result be lexicalized (though one was iffy on this point).

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that we have to trust Google on this point — it's not my experience that this sort of pedagogical/applied-linguistics Web site is persnickety about using the scientifically correct linguistic terminology — but I hope you won't be offended when I say that the burden is on you to show that these sites and the Columbia Guide are using the term wrongly.

That said, I think it likely either that you're mistaken, or that the term is used ambivalently between the sense I mean and the sense you mean, because in my experience Language Log does generally get the terminology right (not necessarily perfectly — the posters there generally enjoy writing about things that aren't in their specific field of expertise — but still), and it's easy to find entries where it uses about the same definition as the Columbia Guide — see e.g. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003295.html, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003195.html.

(If we can come to a consensus on what exactly the term means, then we should definitely mention the things it refers to. If it does mean what the Columbia Guide and various Language Log entries pedagogical Web sites think, then it probably warrants its own section, if only so we can elaborate on the difference between an independent adjective and an adjective that's been subsumed into a compound. And for that matter, we need a section on compound adjectives.)

—Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest that all compound nouns are N+N sequences, I just said that all N+N sequences form a compound noun. (If I say that the congressmen met on Wednesday, forming a committee, I don't mean to say that all commities are formed of congressmen meeting on Wednesdays.) However, the Columbia guide says that some N+N sequences aren't compound nouns, and their decisions on this seem completely arbitrary (why is "bird house" a compound but not "school principal"?) I think the Columbia guide actually goes against your definition of a compound, since "school principal" is clearly, in your words, "a single 'word' that's composed of multiple 'words', and that's a noun". The Language Log doesn't say anything explicit about the relevant issues (since it doesn't talk much about N+N compounds). Cadr 11:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "I never meant to suggest that all compound nouns are N+N sequences": Oh, sorry. I thought you meant that as a definition. (After all, if you agree that compound nouns often consist of an adjective and a noun, then why would you have the article on adjectives only mention non-adjective-containing compound nouns?) Re: "I think the Columbia guide actually goes against your definition of a compound": Eh? I actually don't think "school principal" is a single "word" (though I could perhaps be convinced otherwise), and apparently the Columbia Guide doesn't either (and presumably it's too late to try to convince it).

In general, I don't understand your definition. You seem to be defining compound noun as "A single 'word' that's composed of multiple 'words', and that's a noun, or a single phrase that's composed of multiple nouns, and that's a noun"?

—Ruakh_TALK 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I think of it, the stress test does distinguish "school principle" and "bird house", so I guess they aren't both compounds. Oops! Cadr 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew example

The Hebrew example in the beginning is somewhat controversial because צריך is not strictly an adjective but rather a verbial form (present participle). Hebrew verbs don't have a present tense, but instead form present participles. A participle possesses both the traits of an adjective (can be used to modify nouns) and a verb (can have objects and adjuncts). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexey Feldgendler (talk • contribs) 07:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I couldn't decide if that's a good example. Traditionally, it's considered an adjective (and my dictionary gives it as one), and I'll note that הייתי צריך is much more freely available as a past tense than you'd expect if צריך were simply a participle. (Contrast הייתי הולך, which is only used as a conditional mood and to express actions that were repeated over the long term.) However, modern linguists do often consider it an irregular participle of צרך, citing as evidence the fact that the regularly-formed participle of צרך is not used, and the fact that צריך uses את with a definite complement and no preposition with an indefinite one. So, I decided to include it, because even if it's kind-of a verb, it's also kind-of a non-verb adjective, and I couldn't think of a better example in any of the languages I speak. (There are probably a bunch, but I find it really hard to think of such things.) If you can think of a better example of this (that is, an example where a language uses an adjective where English uses something else), then by all means, please replace the existing one. —Ruakh_TALK 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I remember...

In older versions of this article, e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adjective&oldid=118426280 (not sure if that's the most recent relevant version), there are some sections "Adjective order", "Comparison of adjectives" and "Adjectives of relation". Although these are rather over-long and waffly, are we happy that all information of interest actually got carried forward to the new (and generally much improved) article? I didn't write any of that stuff, except I think I may have changed a few commas or something. So, I don't have any particular axe to grind, but just wondering... Matt 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] English adjective vs. adjective in general

The article is currently about both, and it's not good for either. Should we split this into two articles? Zocky | picture popups 11:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)