What is the difference between the fact that grass is green and the green grass?
Not sure of your question. When you write "the green grass", do you mean some actual grass, or do you mean a reference to it, i.e. someone saying or writing "the green grass"?
The grass is only green to the viewer. Anyone else not viewing the grass just presumes its green.
Just basically, 'the fact that grass is green' as opposed to saying something upon an observation that 'the green grass'. Sorry if there's still confusion there; but, I can't make it any more simple.
That's a bit clearer.
Is there a context for this question? Are we discussing philosophy, epistemology, logic...?
Yes, I figure you can call it a philosophical question; but, it's a simple question on face value. Namely, whether there is any difference between stating the fact that grass is green and the observation that there is green grass. I don't mean to profess any sophistry here.
This statement implies to me that all grass is green.
This implies to me that there is, or may be, also grass with other colors.
Grass could be burned - yellow.
that you put green before grass to describe the colour of the grass then the other way around?
Reminds me of a science joke:
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.
The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"
The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."
Grammar or Usage question?
The grass is green.
A statement which equates grass and green.
- green grass -
Adjective 'green' gives information about the noun, 'grass'; not a sentence, but a phrase(?); in which 'grass' is given a word to modify or specify its meaning.
Much ado about apparently very little.
Separate names with a comma.