Frequently Asked Questions about AllNoun:


Question:
How come last time I looked, the roles were "role" and "whole" and now
they seem to be something else?

Answer:
You may be mixing two different things. "part" and "role" are terms in
AllNoun's grammatic theory. Roles like "whole", "agent", "manner" and so
forth are frequent roles in AllNoun's vocabulary.


Question:
Aren't the punctuation markers non-noun parts of speech? So it's not
really _all_ nouns, is it?

Answer:
I suppose in a very abstract philosophical way, one could consider
punctuation a part of speech. If that were the case, then we would say
that (say) English had not only nouns, verbs, etc. but also commas,
periods, and so forth, for maybe 13 or 14 parts of speech.

But generally we don't, in any language. Perhaps because there is no
useful sense of a vocabulary of punctuation.

In any case, I'm satisfied that AllNoun is nearly as homogeneous as
possible. IMO if punctuation markers are an anomaly they are a
neccessary one.


Question:
Is AllNoun similar to Paonese, the language in Jack Vance's _The
Languages Of Pao_?

Answer:
In my opinion the similarity is very superficial. AFAIK, Paonese only
exists as a passing mention in the Vance book. From what I could tell,
Paonese seemed to rely on implicit grammar, which I think AllNoun
avoids.

Vance's idea seems to be that, ~a la~ the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, a
language based only on nouns must belong to a stodgy race. I don't
agree, on two counts.

		First, I only accept a weak version of S-W, where the language
		constrains and is shaped by culture, but does not neccessarily
		constrain an individual's thinking, except insofar as that
		individual's thoughts need cultural feedback.

		Secondly, on exactly the same evidence one could make the opposite
		claim: "A language where the nouns are as active as other languages'
		verbs must belong to a very lively race". They appear to cancel out.
		I don't think either claim has much merit.


Question:
OK, what languages _are_ similar to AllNoun?

Answer:
In my opinion, the closest are Paul Doudna's Xaq, developed
independently before AllNoun, and Jacques Guy's Click, developed after
AllNoun.


Question:
If it all translates into prepositional phrases, why isn't it called
AllPrepositionalPhrase?

Answer:
Heheh.

Seriously, because it is still the case that all the content-words are
nouns. The canonical prepositional phrase ("of which the <role> is
<part>") carries no content. Besides, "AllPrepositionalPhrase" is
terribly awkward.


Question:
Aren't there really two classes of noun, the "parts" and the "roles"?

Answer:
No, they really are interchangeable. Words may tend to be more useful as
roles or parts, but any word really can fit in either category.

As a limiting example, consider that in his column (and later book)
Metamagical Themas, Douglas Hofstadter once asked, in complete
seriousness, "Who is the Dennis Thatcher of America?". By this he meant,
"Who or what in America plays the same role that prime minister Margaret
Thatcher's husband plays in England?"

It seems to me that if the proper noun "Dennis Thatcher" can be a role,
then anything can be.