As much as I don’t like how nominalization is used much of the time, I can see how careful use can convey difficult-to-convey notions. Moving from is-a to has-a is a nominalizing process.
-ness : Add suffix to make noun indicating:
state of / quality of / measure of.
Ah! So, once turned into state-of:
It can be processed as part of a finite state machine. So, I can “be grateful” (is-a) OR if I switch to being in a “state of grateful” – that is, “grat-itude” (has-a), that means I can _lose_ the gratitude: where the “state of” grateful is turned off.
Permanent fact vs transient state/quality/measure.
It’s hairsplitting MOST of the time as these are generally able to be exchanged in English and in other languages that do it.
Another possible direction is verbifying. I actually much prefer that idea as better than both is-a or has-a.
I guess that would be: “Does”?
What amazes me is this is in the realm between aesthetic and architecture. Functionality is affected by these kinds of choices and yet the choices aren’t always made for function but for aesthetic reasons…
which… means.. that.. functionality is an aesthetic isn’t it?
…. effectiveness is an aesthetic…
… … … … for all my railing about effectiveness ultimately being more crucial than efficiency – that is to say, people use the name of efficiency to CUT OUT effectiveness… .. it is.. ultimately an aesthetic. I have to put my god on the shelf next to all the others dang it.
It pains me to realize that “effectiveness is an aesthetic”. All the time I railed about people misusing “efficiency” as an excuse to cut out “effectiveness”, that effectiveness is far more valuable than efficiency… effectiveness ultimately, an aesthetic. Reasoned it out. ugh.