User:Dan Polansky/Proper noun

Some content related to proper nouns is at User:Dan Polansky/Name. Here I will focus on the following questions:
 * What distinguishes proper nouns from common nouns?
 * Is there such a thing as proper nouns at all?
 * Is it any good to have the dictionary separate common nouns from proper nouns?

Before I go further, there is a decent article at Appendix:English proper nouns.

Distinguishing proper nouns from common nouns
See also User:EncycloPetey/English proper nouns.

The one key distinguishing feature is that proper nouns refer to individual referents by acts of christening. By contrast, common nouns refer to concepts by (often historically untraceable) acts of christening, and to individual referents by invoking concepts that apply to them. Thus, the referents of a single sense of a common noun have something in common other than "being called X"; they have the concept that applies to them in common, the concept named by the noun. Put differently, proper nouns are names of individual entities while common nouns are names of concepts. For a common noun to refer to an individual referent, it needs an article. (A concept is also an individual entity in the class of concept, but the distinction still holds true.) That is at least how it works for countable common nouns; the case of uncountable common nouns is a bit different.

To learn about the meaning of a countable common noun, one can be given examples of its referents and then extrapolate from there. If one has seen some cats, one can recognize a new individual entity that one has not yet seen as a cat. For a common noun such as Peter or London, there is no such extrapolation: each additional Peter or London only shares the name with the other instances.

The singularity of reference is a poor test. Arguably, the universe, the earth, the moon, and the sun are not proper nouns; they are common nouns referring to singleton classes or concepts. Many grammarians disagree, hence the capitalization of these. Proper nouns generally refer to multiple referents so the test is unclear without further elucidation. Singularity of reference is present in names of qualities ("blueness") and names of substances ("gold").

Capitalization is a poor test. In English, adjective English and common noun Englishman are capitalized. So is common noun Darwinian. Sure enough, once something is considered to be a proper noun, it gets capitalized, so capitalization is a hint.

Proper nouns are usually taken to refer to concrete objects, especially people, places, and organizations but also less concrete objects such as events. Names of chemical elements are not considered to be proper nouns. Names of properties (blueness) are not proper nouns.

Existence of proper nouns
Some raise doubt about whether there is such a thing as proper nouns. This is caused by definitional and demarcation difficulties. As a general note, there is only one true definition, the mathematical definition. Everything else is the dirty empirical world. Definitions outside of mathematics often leave edge cases undecided and linguistics is no exception.

English proper nouns have some striking grammatical properties: "The man called" vs. "Peter called" and "I arrived at the city" vs. "I arrived at London". There is no article. Yes, some proper nouns do take an article, but that does not detract from the observation. Yes, "Peter" can be used as a common noun meaning "A person named 'Peter'", but that does not diminish there being a proper noun Peter.

Yes, ranking names of languages as proper nouns seems arbitrary; non-English linguistic traditions often do not do it. One can claim languages to be like substances, such as wood, not concrete objects, and sentences being made from languages as if chair from wood.

Yes, ranking names of weekdays as proper nouns seems arbitrary; non-English linguistic traditions often do not do it.

Yes, it is not entirely clear why names of taxa are considered to be proper nouns.

But there is no doubt Peter and London are proper nouns. Even Hague with its "The" is a proper noun; things would be easier without the "the" exception, but well, they aren't.

Utility for the dictionary
Even if there are some difficulties in classifying certain items as proper nouns, having a separate category is useful for searching in it. For instance, it is possible to search for "association" in the category of proper nouns, useful for dictionary maintenance. It is possible to find all initialisms that are proper nouns, also interesting.

Whether the readers learn all that much from the dictionary's carrying the label "proper noun" on entries is less clear. The readers would do well to read a grammatical guide on proper nouns to learn about them anyway.

Languages
Non-English languages often rank names of languages as common nouns, and write them in lowercase accordingly. Having English and non-English classification language-specific and thereby inconsistent is tolerable.

Names of weekdays
Non-English languages often rank names of weekdays (Monday, Tuesday, etc.) as common nouns, and write them in lowercase accordingly. Having English and non-English classification language-specific and thereby inconsistent is tolerable.

Names of taxa
It is not entirely clear why names of taxa are proper nouns. Wiktionary does treat them that way. fly agaric is a common noun, while Amanita muscaria is classified as a proper noun.

Names of principles
If principles, theorems and laws are abstract objects, their names are not proper nouns. One has to admit they result from christening an individual entity, even if an abstract one. One example is Pythagorean theorem. It is not capitalized as a proper noun. Many such entries are tracked as proper nouns in Wiktionary.

Proper noun definitions
Proper noun definitions are one of the following:
 * A non-definition stating the function of the noun, e.g. "first name" or "surname". That is not a definition proper.
 * A common-noun-like definition, e.g. "the capital of the U.K.". For each proper noun, there is a host of common-noun-like definitions/intensions that apply to them. Each such definition is necessarily wrong from Kripkean rigid-designator point of view. The definitions take the Russelian point of view that interpret proper noun meanings as descriptions. The definitions choose some properties to list, often partially redundant for identification purposes. The definitions are in fact short encyclopedic summaries, not definitions from a logic point of view. That is fine. Interestingly, a similar situation applies to names of chemical elements. The ultimate definition of proper noun X is 'that which has been christened as X'. That, of course, is unhelpful.

Inclusion in dictionaries
See WT:MWO and WT:OED. Some are included and many are excluded.