p with intermediary features. Crucial for this decision is the isolability test (separation shift of the qualifying noun) which is performed for the contact noun combinations by an easy, productive type of transformation. Cf.: A cannon ball? a ball for cannon; the court regulation? the regulation of the court; progress report? report about progress; the funds distribution? the distribution of the funds.
The corresponding compound nouns (formed from substantive stems), as a rule, cannot undergo the isolability test with an equal ease. The transformations with the nounal compounds are in fact reduced to sheer explanations of their etymological motivation. The comparatively closer connection between the stems in compound nouns is reflected by the spelling (contact or hyphenated presentation). E.g.: fireplace? place where fire is made; starlight? light coming from stars; story-teller? teller (writer, composer) of stories; theatre-goer? a person who goes to (frequents) theatres.
Contact noun attributes forming a string of several words are very characteristic of professional language. E.g.:
A number of Space Shuttle trajectory optimisation problems were simulated in the development of the algorithm, including three ascent problems and a re-entry problem (From a scientific paper on spacecraft). The accuracy of offshore tanker unloading operations is becoming more important as the cost of petroleum products increases (From a scientific paper on control systems). p align="justify"> As a part of speech, the noun is also characterised by a set of formal features determining its specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinctions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models, conversion patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination, which will be analysed below. p align="justify"> The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several subclasses, which are identified by means of explicit classificational criteria. The most general and rigorously delimited subclasses of nouns are grouped into four oppositional pairs. p align="justify"> The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of this division is "type of nomination". The second subclass opposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of "form of existence". The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of "personal quality". The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of "quantitative structure". p align="justify"> Somewhat less explicitly and rigorously realised is the division of English nouns into concrete and abstract.
The order in which the subclasses are presented is chosen by convention, not by categorially relevant features: each subclass correlation is reflected on the whole of the noun system; this means that the given set of eight subclasses cannot be structured hierarchically in any linguistically consistent sense (some sort of hierarchical relations can be observed only between animate - inanimate and human - non-human groupings). Consider the following examples: There were three Marys in our company. The cattle have been driven out into the pastures. p align="justify"> The noun Mary used in the first of the above sentences is at one and the same time "proper" (first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass division), "human" (third subclass division), "countable" (fourth subclass division). The noun cattle used in the second sentence is at one and the same time "common" (first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass division), "non-human" (third subclass division), "uncountable" ; (fourth subclass division).
The subclass differentiation of nouns constitutes a foundation for their selectional syntagmatic combinability both among themselves and with other parts of speech. In the selectional aspect of combinability, the subclass features form the corresponding selectional bases. p align="justify"> In particular, the inanimate selectional base of combinability can be pointed out between the noun subject and the verb predicate in the following sentence: The sandstone was crumbling. (Not: * The horse was crumbling.) p align="justify"> The animate selectional base is revealed between the noun subject and the verb in the following sentence: The poor creature was laming. (Not: * The tree was laming.) p align="justify"> The human selectional base underlies the connection between the nouns in the following combination: John's love of music (not: * the cat's love of music).
The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of current linguistic research work.
...
