Page 1 of 1
On the ordering of adjectives
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:11 pm
by rdhopeca
www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_good_wo ... ingle.html
Some key points:
Whitman distinguishes between correlative pairs of modifiers and the fussier cumulative ones. These, read in succession in a sentence, accrete sense in a specific way. For example, consider the subset of adjectives called operators, which often take part in cumulative constructions. Such terms—“former,” “alleged,” “fake”—fundamentally change the meaning of whatever follows. (An “alleged” thief may not be a thief at all.) Therefore, when dealing with operators, the precise idea you want to express determines the order of adjectives, and a furniture dealer is not at liberty to oscillate between “fake Malaysian ivory”—a material masquerading as Malaysian ivory—and “Malaysian fake ivory”—a not-ivory material from Malaysia. (For more on operator adjectives, also known as non-intersective adjectives, and their role in possible adjective ordering, I mean possible role in adjective ordering, check out Alexandra Teodorescu’s 2006 paper for the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.)
But what about modifiers that sound good in one order and bad in another, even if they convey the same meaning both ways? Though red big barns and big red barns are semantically identical, the second kind pleases our ears more. These tricky situations—neither pure correlation nor accumulation—generally occur when you cross the border between adjectival regions, such as size and color. When that happens, an invisible code snaps into place, and the eight categories shimmy into one magistral conga line: general opinion then specific opinion then size then shape then age then color then provenance then material.
All of which can get really confusing. For one thing, it’s hard to remember. (GSSSACPM isn’t that sticky of an acronym.) Plus, the boundary between a “general” and a “specific” opinion seems thin, with words like beautiful or sweet evoking both discrete, somewhat measurable qualities and nebulous curtains of approval. A few linguists also contest the placing of shape before age, or size after opinion. (Sure, “mean little terrier” works better than “little mean terrier,” but doesn’t a large comfortable armchair sound nicer than its inverse? And what about the trump card suggested to me by the son of one Slate colleague: “BIG STINKY FART”?)
I tend to concentrate on meter a lot...I write as if I expect my words to be "singable"...
Thoughts?
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 9:32 pm
by Dread Poet Jethro
Meter's important
But I more carefully watch
Syllable structure
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:03 pm
by wayfriend
This has always seemed like a very vain attempt at rationalizing the inherently irrational. It's like trying to find a rational reason why days of the workweek never begin with S, and days of the weekend always do.
It's easy enough to determine what sounds right, isn't it? How do rules help?
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:18 am
by aliantha
My initial thought is that linguists are too hung up on rules.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:20 pm
by Vraith
aliantha wrote:My initial thought is that linguists are too hung up on rules.
No, I think you're wrong about that. It's only a particular sub-species [mostly sub-par] who are hung up on rules....like that "Grammarly" thing peeps are always putting on facebook. Those people are so often utterly wrong, and so always certain. [[and almost never linguists. just folk who've memorized and immortalized "rules."]]
The true linguists love, honor, and cherish the rule-breakers, the dialects, the regionalisms, the quirks, quibbles, growth and changes.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:19 pm
by aliantha
And thus, I am properly chastised for going for a flippant response.
In terms of adjective order -- heck, in terms of word order in general -- I tend to default to how it sounds best in my head. If that's musical or poetic or what-have-you, then I'll plead guilty as charged.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:48 pm
by wayfriend
This is a short humorous pointed self-referential critical literary post.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:57 pm
by Vraith
wayfriend wrote:This is a short humorous pointed self-referential critical literary post.
The above sentence is false.
Therefore for there are no short humorous pointed self-referential critical literary posts.
In a relative sense.
Since in an absolute sense the above is what the above says it is.
Mr. Morton is the subject of my sentence and what the predicate says he does.
Ali, I was just trying to have some fun [although Grammarly really does bug me and is almost always wrong] without falling back on the old cunning linguists joke.
And yea, definitely on adjective order...whatever sounds best probably is and is also probably "correct."
Other order things become more complicated...cuz you can lose people even if you are doing it on purpose, and that purpose is justifiable/meaningful.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:02 pm
by aliantha
Vraith wrote:Ali, I was just trying to have some fun [although Grammarly really does bug me and is almost always wrong] without falling back on the old cunning linguists joke.
D'oh! In that case, I stand by my original comment.
Otherwise, I agree with you. The point of communication is to communicate, after all. Why make people work extra hard by putting words out of their "natural" order?