# Do the Dodgers need another starting pitcher?



## JungKim

It's the title of an ESPN's article.
I'd like to know how you would categorize "starting" there. 
Is it a noun or an adjective?
I'm thinking it's a noun.


----------



## Blippo

'Starting' is an adjective, to tell us what kind of pitcher the player is. I presume there are other kinds of pitchers and that distinction is sometimes needed.

In the following example, 'starting' is a noun:

"Starting is easy, it's finishing that can be difficult."


----------



## Egmont

Blippo said:


> 'Starting' is an adjective, to tell us what kind of pitcher the player is. I presume there are other kinds of pitchers and that distinction is sometimes needed.


There are indeed. The two major categories are:

- _starting pitchers,_ who start a game and are normally expected to pitch for most of it.

- _relief pitchers,_ who replace the starting pitcher when he or she gets tired or is seen to be ineffective.

There are subdivisions of these categories, especially the second, but we can leave that for a forum on baseball.


----------



## JungKim

If it tells you what kind, then isn't it a noun rather than an adjective?

For example, as in Egmont's post, "relief" in "relief pitchers" is a noun and tells you what kind.


----------



## JustKate

No, the noun is _pitcher_ - _starting_ is describing a particular kind of pitcher. _Relief_ is also a modifier, describing another type of pitcher. _Starting_ and _relief_ both function as adjectives, as do _good, new_ and _Major League_ do in these examples (which I made up):
He was a _good pitcher_, the best we had that season.
A _new pitcher_ came into the game in the middle of the 7th inning.
He became a_ Major League pitcher_ at the age of 19.


----------



## Egmont

Nouns often function as adjectives:

In "This is a green door," the adjective _green_ describes the door by telling us its color.

In "This is a closet door," the noun _closet,_ functioning as an adjective, describes the door by telling us what it closes off.


----------



## Loob

Egmont and Kate, where does the stress go in "starting pitcher"?  Is it on the first word, like the _walking_ in "walking stick", or is it on the second word, like the _walking_ in "walking wounded"?

If the stress is on the first word, I'd say that _starting_ is a noun modifying another noun; if it's on the second word, I'd say it's an adjective.


----------



## JustKate

It is on _pitcher_. I guess _starting pitcher_ could be considered a noun phrase, but really, the noun is _pitcher_. 

I do see what you mean. In _walking stick_, _walking_ is integral to the meaning of the noun phrase. "Fetch me a stick" means something quite different from "Fetch me a walking stick." But while there are different kinds of pitchers in baseball, they're all pitchers. It's just a question of what specific kind of pitcher a particular individual is (and actually, it's not terribly uncommon for somebody who's ordinarily a starting pitcher to pitch a few innings as a relief pitcher, if the team gets into a jam). I don't see how _starting_ or _relief_ can be anything but modifiers/adjectives.


----------



## Egmont

Loob said:


> ... If the stress is on the first word, I'd say that _starting_ is a noun modifying another noun; if it's on the second word, I'd say it's an adjective.


I think it depends on the context. 

If I know nothing about a player, and ask "What position does Clay Buchholz play?" and get the answer "He's a starting pitcher*," the accent would be on _pitcher.
_
However, were I to ask "Is Clay Buchholz usually a relief pitcher?" after one of those occasional appearances in that role that JustKate referred to, the answer would be "No, he's usually a starting pitcher," with the accent on _starting_ to emphasize the difference. There's no need to emphasize that he's a pitcher; both of us see that.

I would call the words _starting_ and _relief_ adjectives in both cases. I don't think that should change depending on the rest of the sentence.

_________________________
*He really is. He pitches for the Boston Red Sox of the American League.


----------



## sdgraham

I'm with Egmont, above. The context controls the inflection.


----------



## JulianStuart

Egmont said:


> I think it depends on the context.
> 
> If I know nothing about a player, and ask "What position does Clay Buchholz play?" and get the answer "He's a starting pitcher*," the accent would be on _pitcher.
> _
> However, were I to ask "Is Clay Buchholz usually a relief pitcher?" after one of those occasional appearances in that role that JustKate referred to, the answer would be "No, he's usually a starting pitcher," with the accent on _starting_ to emphasize the difference. There's no need to emphasize that he's a pitcher; both of us see that.
> 
> I would call the words _starting_ and _relief_ adjectives in both cases. I don't think that should change depending on the rest of the sentence.
> 
> _________________________
> *He really is. He pitches for the Boston Red Sox of the American League.


Indeed the context will rule.  In the absence of any previous conversation/text, there is isn't much significant difference in stress on the two words: for instance when an announcer is reading out the names of the players and their positions at the start of the broadcast.  Many other conversations will be discussing such things as Egmont notes, so stressing one over the other is not infrequent.  Cricket parallels for the UK sports folks would be - spin bowler, opening bowler etc.

Cross-posted


----------



## Loob

I think there's, in part, an issue of terminology here.  Looking at Egmont's examples in post 6, I would say that both "green" (in the first example) and "closet" (in the second example) modify the noun "door".  But for me "green" is an *adjective *modifying "door"; and "closet" is a *noun* modifying "door".

I think it's that sort of distinction which underlies JungKim's question.  But it looks as though we  can all agree that the answer to his question is that "opening" in "opening pitcher" is an adjective.


----------



## JustKate

That's one of the reasons I try to use _modifier_ instead of _adjective_. A noun can act as an adjective or as a modifier, but it seems to me it's easier for someone (native speaker or non-native speaker) who is struggling with grammar terms to understand this idea when the term _modifier_ is used. I could be wrong about that, of course.


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> I think there's, in part, an issue of terminology here..



The WRF dictionary/Collins has this definition of _adjective_




> n•a word imputing a characteristic to a noun or pronoun
> •(as modifier): an *adjective* phrase
> Abbreviation: adj


In this definition they use adjective (the noun) as an adjective


----------



## Loob

No, they use _adjective_ (the noun) as a modifier, Julian


----------



## Keith Bradford

Personally, since all these terms (adjective, noun, verb...) relate to how the word functions in a sentence, I prefer to call words by their _function_. Otherwise, it's the slippery slope to saying: "In the sentence '_This pitcher played from the start'_, the word *start *is a verb functioning as a noun". And you'd have to know the etymology of every word including its first recorded use in English, before you could decide what it "really" was.

*Orange *is a case in point. Is it "really" a noun that sometimes functions as an adjective? Why not call it "really" an adjective that sometimes operates as a noun?

Nah. Context is all. In a given context, if it functions as an adjective, it is an adjective. If not, not. And in English most words can change their identity in this way.


----------



## Loob

Keith Bradford said:


> Personally, since all these terms  (adjective, noun, verb...) relate to how the word functions in a  sentence, I prefer to call words by their _function_.


I agree that it's important to think in terms of functions, Keith.

Where we differ is that you, I suspect, would see _closet_ in Egmont's "closet door" as 'functioning as an adjective'.  I don't: I see it as 'functioning as a modifier'.

Adjectives have several functions, one of which is modifying nouns.
Nouns *also *have several functions - one of which is ... modifying nouns.


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> No, they use _adjective_ (the noun) as a modifier, Julian


It has a modifier function   So modifier can be used adjectivally.

As long as the OP, or anyone learning terms like this, is aware that there are not _universally_ agreed definitions/restrictions on use etc., we have done them a service.  If there is a grammar book that defines the way they use the words to teach, that is fine but I would encourage them to note that there are other conventions, and that they may even change over time.  (I have enough time under my belt to speak from experience - many terms I see in threads here didn't exist when I was learning English and other languages.  People need to throw out old dictionaries and such)


----------



## Loob

Wise words, Julian....


----------



## JungKim

Wow, a lot has happened while I got some sleep. And my fresh mind wants to ask this. 
Maybe it doesn't really matter what you want to call "relief" in "relief pitcher", be it a noun, or an adjective, or even a modifier, if indeed they have the same function. But that's a big if. 

I don't think you can confuse a noun functioning as a modifier of another noun on the one hand and an adjective functioning as a modifier of a noun on the other, because the two are different in their respective functions and therefore in their meanings.

Take a look at this set of examples:
(1) _a beauty contest_
(2) _a beautiful contest_

To my non-native eyes, "beauty" is clearly a noun modifying another noun ("contest") and it has the function of describing the *type* of the contest, whereas "beautiful" is clearly an adjective modifying a noun ("contest") and it has the function of describing the *attribute *of the contest. True, both "beauty" and "beautiful" function as a modifier of the noun ("contest"). But you may not interchange them, because of the aforementioned functional differences.

Now, when I asked in the OP if "starting" in "starting pitcher" is a noun or an adjective, I wasn't sure about the function of "starting". But after Blippo's post (#2) kindly told me that "starting" describes the type of the pitcher rather than the attribute, I realized that it is a noun. 

So this is not as murky as it seems, at least to me now. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Loob

No - I think that in the light of the comments in this thread, "starting" in "starting pitcher" is an adjective, not a noun


----------



## JustKate

I have never heard of this particular way of differentiating before, and it's pretty clever, I must say.  Perhaps it is useful to those learning English, so if it helps you, great. 

But to me, a native speaker, it seems as though you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. How a word is usually classified isn't nearly as important as how it functions in a particular sentence, and to me, if a word modifies a noun or describes the noun, it's either a modifier or an adjective (pick whichever term you prefer). 

That avoids the whole messy uncertainty about "Is the modifying word usually a noun or not?" Because it's not always clear. For example, in _silver watch_, does _sliver_ refer to the color, in which case it's a plain old adjective, or does it refer to the metal known as silver, in which case it's a noun modifying another noun? In _wool carpet_, the traditional adjective is _woolen_, but it's not used much any more (at least in AmE). _Wool_ is now used as a regular adjective ("Is this coat wool?") more often than the traditional adjectival form. The same thing has happened with _wood_ - it's now used as an adjective considerably more often than the traditional adjective _wooden_.

Some people do use the term _noun phrase_ in reference to exactly what you're talking about - a noun modified by another noun. Maybe you'll find that term useful.

Edit:
Oh, and as for _starting pitcher_, _starting_ seems like a flat-out adjective to me. It's true that _starting pitchers_ are usually differentiated from other sorts of pitchers, but it's also true that _starting pitcher_ means, very simply, the pitcher that pitches the first pitch of the game. Anybody could be the starting pitcher. It's usually one of the designated starting pitchers, but if the team's had a bunch of injuries, it might _start_ someone who's usually a relief pitcher.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> No - I think that in the light of the comments in this thread, "starting" in "starting pitcher" is an adjective, not a noun


Loob, in light of the comments, would you call "beauty" in "beauty contest" an adjective as well?


----------



## JungKim

JustKate said:


> Some people do use the term _noun phrase_ in reference to exactly what you're talking about - a noun modified by another noun. Maybe you'll find that term useful.


As far as I know, any phrase having a noun as its head is called a noun phrase, including a phase having a head noun modified by an adjective as well as by another noun.


----------



## srk

It seems to me that the only way "starting" can be a noun, or function as one, is for it to be a gerund.  It is a gerund in "the starting of a motor" or "... fire".  "The starting of a baseball game" works for me with "starting" as gerund.  "Starting pitcher" is then the pitcher who pitches at the starting of the game.  It is a noun, or a verb made into a noun, used as an adjective.


----------



## JustKate

JungKim said:


> As far as I know, any phrase having a noun as its head is called a noun phrase, including a phase having a head noun modified by an adjective as well as by another noun.



Yes, but it's particularly useful (at least to *me*  ) when I use it to classify phrases where the modifier and noun create a concept that is substantially different from the meaning of the unmodified noun - such as _peppermint stick_, _water table_ and _Christmas tree_. These are often, though not always, phrases that consist of a main noun modified by something that is usually classified as a noun.


----------



## JungKim

JustKate said:


> But to me, a native speaker, it seems as though you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. How a word is usually classified isn't nearly as important as how it functions in a particular sentence, and to me, if a word modifies a noun or describes the noun, it's either a modifier or an adjective (pick whichever term you prefer).


Maybe you're confusing word categories with their functions. 
In "a beauty contest", "beauty" belongs to the noun category, whereas in "a beautiful contest", "beautiful" belongs to the adjective category. Now the function of both "beauty" and "beautiful" is a modifier. 
What you're saying is that you'd like to call both "beauty" and "beautiful" simply an adjective, which runs the risk of allowing almost all the nouns to be also included in the adjective category. This approach might be less complicated, but then why do we even have such categories as nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, etc. in the first place if we're to allow one category to absorb the other?


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> Loob, in light of the comments, would you call "beauty" in "beauty contest" an adjective as well?


I'm afraid I'm getting lost in this thread.

I would classify "beauty" in "beauty contest" as a noun.


----------



## JustKate

JungKim said:


> Maybe you're confusing word categories with their functions.
> In "a beauty contest", "beauty" belongs to the noun category, whereas in "a beautiful contest", "beautiful" belongs to the adjective category. Now the function of both "beauty" and "beautiful" is a modifier.
> What you're saying is that you'd like to call both "beauty" and "beautiful" simply an adjective, which runs the risk of allowing almost all the nouns to be also included in the adjective category. This approach might be less complicated, but then why do we even have such categories as nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, etc. in the first place if we're to allow one category to absorb the other?



What I'm saying is that how you categorize a word isn't nearly as important as how it functions in a particular sentence - at least to me, and I'm not alone in this. So yes, both _beauty_ and _beautiful_ can be adjectives, or at least act as adjectives. And yes, almost all nouns - I honestly can't think of any exceptions, but I'm saying "almost" just as a hedge - can act as adjectives. Or modifiers, if you prefer that term. This doesn't bother me at all.

Now and then, you can even find adjectives functioning in very specific instances as nouns, e.g. "the brave and the beautiful" and "Fortune favors the bold."

The reason we have classifications, or so it seems to me, is to figure out how a word is functioning in a particular sentence. It's fine and necessary for the dictionary to further classify a word as a noun, adjective or whatever, meaning that's what it usually is. But that classification doesn't change the fact that a noun can at times be referring to a person, place or thing, while at other times it will be used to describe a person, place or thing.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> I'm afraid I'm getting lost in this thread.
> 
> I would classify "beauty" in "beauty contest" as a noun.


Thanks. And I'm sure that you would classify "beautiful" in "beautiful contest" as an adjective.
Let me show you why this classification is right.
You can say "the contest is beautiful" and "beautiful" here means the same thing as in "beautiful contest".
You might also say "the contest is beauty"(?), but "beauty" here certainly doesn't mean the same thing as in "beauty contest".  

Now, let's apply this test to "starting pitcher".
You can say "the pitcher is starting", but "starting" here doesn't mean the same thing as in "starting pitcher", because the former means that the pitcher is starting now, but the latter doesn't have such a meaning.

Let's compare: "Look at the sleeping baby".
You can say "the baby is sleeping" and "sleeping" here means the same thing as in "sleeping baby". In both cases, the baby is sleeping now. 

So if you call "starting" in "starting pitcher" an adjective, I'm sure you would also call "sleeping" in "sleeping baby" an adjective as well. And you end up lumping them together as adjectives when in fact they have different functions in their respective contexts.


----------



## Keith Bradford

JungKim, why does this matter so much to you?  I bet that >90% of the British population (or probably any other native-English-speaking group) use adjectives perfectly well without asking whether they're nouns being used as modifiers and whether they're describing categories or attributes. I certainly don't give a hoot. 

Does knowing these distinctions help you to better learn (or teach) English, or are you asking as a matter of theoretical interest?


----------



## Loob

I'll let JungKim answer...

But from my own point of view, the question is interesting - and worth exploring.


----------



## JungKim

Keith Bradford said:


> JungKim, why does this matter so much to you?  I bet that >90% of the British population (or probably any other native-English-speaking group) use adjectives perfectly well without asking whether they're nouns being used as modifiers and whether they're describing categories or attributes. I certainly don't give a hoot.
> 
> Does knowing these distinctions help you to better learn (or teach) English, or are you asking as a matter of theoretical interest?



So you're saying that I'm splitting hairs here.
If you can show me how "sleeping" is used differently in this sentence without the distinguishing I tried to do, please be my guest :
_Look at the *sleeping* baby in the *sleeping* bag!_


----------



## bennymix

Jung, "beauty contest" is no different from "lobster stew".   The second word is a noun.  Before it is a word acting as a modifier, namely acting adjectivally.

The fact that _beauty_ and_ lobster_ act as--indeed are--nouns, most frequently (A lobster lives in the ocean) is not really an issue which affects the analysis.

Just Kate made the same points very well, in her post #29, above.

===
Jung said,   





> Thanks. And I'm sure that you would classify "beautiful" in "beautiful contest" as an adjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me show you why this classification is right.
> You can say "the contest is beautiful" and "beautiful" here means the same thing as in "beautiful contest".
> You might also say "the contest is beauty"(?), but "beauty" here certainly doesn't mean the same thing as in "beauty contest".



Note that, with "lobster stew,"  your test is easily passed:  "What kind of stew is this?"  "This stew is lobster *;  that over there is beef *."   Of course at * is understood to be the word 'stew.'


----------



## perpend

"starting" can only be an adjective in ESPN's title, for me.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Jung, "beauty contest" is no different from "lobster stew".   The second word is a noun.  Before it is a word acting as a modifier, namely acting adjectivally.


Agreed.



bennymix said:


> Note that, with "lobster stew," your test is easily passed: "What kind of stew is this?" "This stew is lobster *; that over there is beef *." Of course at * is understood to be the word 'stew.'


No, you cheated by adding *. 
Without *, you can't say "this stew is lobster", cause it ain't, no matter how many lobsters you put in the stew.
And what's up with your concerted effort to disprove my categorization?


----------



## JungKim

perpend said:


> "starting" can only be an adjective in ESPN's title, for me.


Okay. Enough is enough.
For perpend and anyone who thinks "starting" in the OP can only be an adjective, please give me an example of "V+ing" modifying a following noun, wherein the "V+ing" is a noun.


----------



## perpend

lobster* stew
beef* stew
starting* pitcher
bad* pitcher

Everything with a(n) "*" is an adjective.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Jung,

You said,


> Let me show you why this classification is right.
> You can say "the contest is beautiful" and "beautiful" here means the same thing as in "beautiful contest".
> You might also say "the contest is beauty"(?), but "beauty" here certainly doesn't mean the same thing as in "beauty contest".



I have reconsidered.   There is some standard terminology here.   I quote from Wiki  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct


> *
> Noun adjunct*
> 
> In grammar, a noun adjunct or attributive noun or noun (pre)modifier is an optional noun that modifies another noun, meaning that it can be removed without changing the grammar of the sentence; it is a noun functioning as an adjective. For example, in the phrase "chicken soup" the noun adjunct "chicken" modifies the noun "soup".



==
Earlier, post #20, you argued much the same thing:



> To my non-native eyes, "beauty" is clearly a noun modifying another noun ("contest") and it has the function of describing the *type*  of the contest, whereas "beautiful" is clearly an adjective modifying a  noun ("contest") and it has the function of describing the *attribute *of  the contest. True, both "beauty" and "beautiful" function as a modifier  of the noun ("contest"). But you may not interchange them, because of  the aforementioned functional differences.



You were on the right track, though it seems you may be saying adjective and 'attribute' coincide.   There are of course other adjectives, usually given in 5-10 categories.
For instance.  I have a black dog.  My dog is black.   My dog is very black.      These are standard tests, and apply to attributes.   
Compare,  I have one dog.   My dog is one.  My dog is very one.

That said, I see your basic point, and I agree, though this particular argument is not quite sufficient.

==
ADDED:  Egmont made the above point, essentially, in his post #6, above.


----------



## JustKate

I started to reply by clicking "reply with quote" on the various posts, but that would make for a really long and complicated post. So I hope it's OK if I do something smaller scale (though it's still pretty dang long) that nonetheless responds to at least some of JungKim's questions.

That there are different kinds of modifiers is unarguable. That, in my view, doesn't alter the fact that they are still modifiers. Let's start with this example:



			
				JungKim said:
			
		

> If you can show me how "sleeping" is used differently in this sentence without the distinguishing I tried to do, please be my guest





			
				JungKim said:
			
		

> :
> _Look at the *sleeping* baby in the *sleeping* bag!_



I distinguish between these two by identifying two different meanings of _sleeping_. One is "in a state of sleep" and the other is "used for sleeping." As you know, lots of adjectives/modifiers (and words in general, for that matter) have different meanings depending on context. For example: _flower bed_ (a garden planting bed that contains flowers) vs. _flower print_ (fabric that is printed with a flowery pattern); _black dress_ (a dress that is the color black) vs. _black magic_ (magic that uses forces of evil) vs. _black mood_ (depression); _sour milk_ (milk that has gone bad) vs. _sour candy_ (candy that has a sour taste) vs. _sour expression_ (disagreeable expression); and _running shoes_ (shoes used for running) vs. _running water_ (water that flows out of a faucet). If all of these modifiers have different meanings depending on their context, why should _sleeping_ be any different?




			
				JungKim said:
			
		

> For perpend and anyone who thinks "starting" in the OP can only be an adjective, please give me an example of "V+ing" modifying a following noun, wherein the "V+ing" is a noun.


I don't think there are any - or if there are, they're very rare. You, I take it, think this proves that _starting_ is really a noun. I think it proves that English speakers don't like to have two words that end in _-ing_ right next to each other. If anybody else has a more technical explanation, I'd be very interested to hear it. It sounds funny to us - cumbersome, even. (We also have qualms about perfectly common constructions such as "I had had too much to drink," and for pretty much the same reason.) So what we do is truncate the modifier, e.g. _sleep walking_ instead of _sleeping walking_. _Sleeping walking_ actually makes perfect sense, but we just don't say it that way.




			
				JungKim said:
			
		

> So you're saying that I'm splitting hairs here.


No, I think you're trying to make sense of English grammar - you're hoping it's more logical than it, in fact, actually is. 

The way I see it, modifiers can be constructed of all sorts of things. Heck, under certain circumstances, even pronouns and prepositions can be modifiers - e.g., _she bear_ (female bear) or _down escalator_ (an escalator that descends rather than ascends). If you want to try to find special classifications for all of this, I wish you the very best. Maybe your approach is the more scholarly one - and perhaps it's more useful for you than my own everything-goes philosophy of grammar. But I prefer my grammar to be practical, and for me, the most practical and useful way to look at the chaotic picture of English modifiers is just to recognize that no matter what they start as, no matter what they spend most of their time functioning as, when words are acting as modifiers, they are modifiers, pure and simple.


----------



## Keith Bradford

All of that, redoubled in spades.


----------



## bennymix

Just Kate.  Why not accept the terminology that I cited in post #39?   I have seen it in several places.   The fact of modification of the noun (second word) is not the issue in dispute.


----------



## JustKate

bennymix said:


> Just Kate.  Why not accept the terminology that I cited in post #39?   I have seen it in several places.   The fact of modification of the noun (second word) is not the issue in dispute.


I didn't say I don't "accept" it. I'm sure it is used by some. I just - and I don't want to offend anyone here - I just don't see how adding even more classifications and terminology and so on helps anybody, native or non-native speaker, understand how English works. If I'm wrong, either for you or for JungKim, by all means adopt it. But I don't want to give anybody the idea that adding even more grammar terminology is required in order to figure out what a particular modifier is doing in a particular sentence.

As I see it, the way it works is that *any* word, no matter what its usual classification might be, that describes a noun is in fact an adjective or modifier (whichever term you prefer). The _starting_ in _starting pitcher_, whatever else it might be, is a modifier here. It can be a noun, but here, it's either describing a kind of pitcher, or it's indicating that this particular pitcher is the first one in a particular game. (Note to those who don't follow baseball: _starting pitcher_ has these two distinct meanings.) The _she_ in _she bear_ is a modifier. Yes, it's almost always a pronoun, but when it's used as an adjective, it's an adjective. And here it's being used to indicate that this is a female bear. The _down_ in _down escalator_ is a modifier. Yes, it's usually a preposition, but in this case, it's being used to describe a particular escalator - not the one that goes up, but the one that goes down.

Do we need a classification system to describe what sort of modifiers each one of these (_starting, she_ and _down_) happens to be in order to understand what they are doing in a sentence? I don't think so. But again, if you disagree, classify away. Just don't do it simply for the sake of classification. Do it only if you find it useful.

That's my advice. Take it or leave it as you choose.


----------



## JungKim

JustKate said:


> I didn't say I don't "accept" it. I'm sure it is used by some. I just - and I don't want to offend anyone here - I just don't see how adding even more classifications and terminology and so on helps anybody, native or non-native speaker, understand how English works. If I'm wrong, either for you or for JungKim, by all means adopt it. But I don't want to give anybody the idea that adding even more grammar terminology is required in order to figure out what a particular modifier is doing in a particular sentence.



Thank you, JustKate. I couldn't agree more with you on this.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not for adding more classifications either.
Please remember my question in the OP was whether "starting" should be viewed as a noun or an adjective, which classification I believe is the very basic one.

The reason why I asked the question in the first place was because "starting" there does not work as a verb anymore and so it must have gone through some sort of conversion in the context. I was just trying to figure out if it converted to a noun or an adjective, that's all. And through that determination, I can better understand what "starting" really means in context and why it means what it means.


----------



## e2efour

In your two examples _beauty_ and _beautiful_ are _premodiers.
_One is an_ adjectival premodifer _and the other is_ a noun premodifier.

_Various tests can be carried out to determined whether the premodifer is an adjective. For example, we can say that the contest _is beautiful_ or we can talk about a _very_ beautiful contest.

The problem is that these tests do not always tell you whether a word is an adjective or not. Some adjectives cannot follow nouns, while other adjectives cannot be used with _very_.

I don't know whether this is helpful, but I am just stating the obvious.


----------

