Why "shortage" in below statement a noun?

shortage is a noun and employees' creativity is a noun also.

of outlets is a prepositional phrase modifying shortage.

Within that phrase, outlets is a noun and is the object of the preposition of.

for employees' creativity is a prepositional phrase modifying outlets.

Within that prepositional phrase, employees' creativity is noun object of the preposition for.

So nouns can be used as parts of modifiers. They are still nouns.

ImmersiveTables wrote:The employees were upset by the company's low pay, poor working conditions, and shortage of outlets for employees' creativity.

As per book "Shortage" is a noun, shouldn't "employees creativity" be a noun? In my opinion, "shortage of outlets" is more like modifier...

Any justifications?

Hello ImmersiveTables,

Shortage of outlets is not a modifier in the given construction. In the given elliptical construction "the company's" apply to three noun heads (low)pay,(poor working)conditions and shortage(of outlets for employees' creativity ). The items in the parentheses are modifiers and rest are the noun heads related elliptically to "the company's" which is an adjective phrase. So, if you read the last part in full - the company's shortage of outlets for employees' creativity, you can clearly see why shortage is the noun head and the rest of the noun phrase is the modifier. Now regarding the construction of the noun phrase 'of outlets' is modifying 'shortage', outlets is in the Accusative case and hence cannot be the noun head to parallel the other elements in the list which are in the Nominative case. Similarly, in "for employees' creativity" creativity is in the Accusative case and cannot be the noun head to parallel the other elements in the list which are in the Nominative case. Hence, 'shortage of outlets' cannot be the modifier in the given construction.