@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ But an abundant literature shows that the proper / common noun distinction prove
-**(1b)** entity names that have a descriptive basis, such as the *International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism* or the *Massif central* (literally the *central massif*): the naming convention between the entity and the name is sociologically typical of a proper noun (the name of an association, of a geographical item), but also clearly results from the compatibility of the entity characteristics and the meaning of the lexical items
-**(1c)** but also names which serve to designate unique abstract entities, such as abstract simple nouns (*taxidermy*) or abstract MWEs (*Euclidean geometry*, *machine translation*): because of the unicity of the entity that can be called that way, they too can be viewed as entity names, for which the speakers have to learn the naming convention.
Now the thing is that cases (1d) **[AGATA: Do you mean (1c)?]** are traditionally not viewed as proper nouns. Kleiber (1996) argues that proper nouns function to name a particular entity within a specified class (a particular person within the class of persons).
Now the thing is that cases (1c) are traditionally not viewed as proper nouns. Kleiber (1996) argues that proper nouns function to name a particular entity within a specified class (a particular person within the class of persons).
Within PARSEME-FR, we have chosen to keep this tradition of considering (1b) cases as proper nouns, and (1c) cases as common nouns. We distinguish between:
