Talk:List of English determiners

"type of", "kind of", and "sort of" are compound determiners

@User:Brett

So, you made this revert as unsupported. On the other hand, native speakers of English subconsciously and automatically use "type of", "kind of", and "sort of" as compound determiners. For example:

• "This is a type of company that..."   Correct
• "This is a type of a company that..."   Wrong!

But "part of" is not a determiner:

• "This is a part of company that..." 1   Wrong!
• "This is a part of a company that..."   Correct

I am amazed that I cannot find any source on something that should be explained in every grammar textbook. But you, as a professor of English, could explain it on your website, and then we could cite you. Regards 85.193.215.210 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

What you have here is a careful and interesting observation paired with a hasty conclusion. There really isn't any reason to think that these NOUN + PREPOSITION strings have been re-analyzed as determiners. The words type, sort, and kind are clearly nouns:

1. Each of the words can be plural (e.g., two types of car), as we would expect if they were nouns.
2. They can be modified by adjectives (e.g., the right type of person), as we would expect if they were nouns.
3. When singular, they require a determinative (e.g., my type of person), as we would expect if they were nouns. In contrast, most determiners cannot appear together with another determiner.
4. Other nouns work in this same construction: style of game, breed of dog, form of behaviour, mode of action, variety of plant, etc.
5. This pattern can be extended to non-category nouns: point of view, rule of law, secretary of state, matter of fact, etc.

Note, also, that there are many cases where singular count nouns, which would otherwise require a determinative, lack one in a non-of PP.

• in case, in place, in fact, in turn, in town, as part of..., at work, at lunch, to bed, etc.

So the thing that needs explanation is why sometimes singular count nouns do not require a determinative in a PP, but assigning type of, etc. to the determiner category is not the right solution.--Brett (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:Brett It is obvious (at least to me) that "type", "kind", and "sort" are nouns. But my observation refers to phrases. And just because "type" is a noun, does not mean that "type of" is also a noun. Phrases in language often work completely differently than their compounds. (Of course, an expert like you knows it very well. I mentioned about it with other readers in mind, as our discussion is public.) Regardless of whether those phrases are determiners, they work as if they were, at least according to Google search results.

Your further explanations (points 3 and 4) were an enlightening experience for me. I use phrases like "style of game", "point of view" etc. but now I wonder why? I see that English is even more illogical than I thought. Maybe I shoud extend my "improvised theory of compound determiners" and change the main rule, in which the key element would be": NOUN + PREPOSITION, or even PREPOSITION alone, though not all nouns, and not all prepositions. Besides, the very definition of a determiner is rather vague. Your approach is strictly scientific, which is understandable, but from my perspective the English language is such an illogical mess, that a practical approach seems more useful. After all, native speakers of any language do not really learn their language, they acquire it. But, generally I have nothing against rules, if the number of exceptions is much smaller than 50%.

Here is what I found in Google (the second number comes from books):

• "the speed of bullet is" 26k 400
• "the speed of a bullet is" 81k 6k

• "the speed of satellite is" 67k 1k
• "the speed of a satellite is" 112k 3.3k

It is easy to notice a pattern in the above examples, but the number of exceptions is overwhelming.

I am really impressed with your explanations. Thank you! 85.193.215.210 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)