Re: Order of adjectives (was, allegedly, Pearl Harbor question)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:12:35 +0100, usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Catja Pafort) wrote:

>Brian M. Scott <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[a reference to someone else's intgernet post of a classification]

>It might be a classification, but it's not in the order I'd use, or
>you'd get the
>
>
>dangerous small ancient square-toed red Danish leather dancing shoes
>
>
>and, well, you shouldn't. (It's a wise child who stays away from them
>anyway)

Shouldn't you?

>Dangerous ancient Danish small square-toed red leather dancing shoes

Urk!

>would be how I'd organise the lot, but only after considerable
>deliberation.

Actually, IMO, the first reads better. (I'm following this with
interest, particularly the exceptions, so I'm not saying the original
list is always right.)

Actually-actually, the first I don't have any problem with (if I
could figure out what it meant) but the second *definitely* sounds
wrong: I think it would be ok with "small Danish" instead of
"Danish small". I say that without *any* reference back to the
original ordering: just gut feeling.

>There is a certain leeway, particularly if you use only a selection of
>them.

Mathematically, I think there is a "partial ordering" - some things
must come before others, but where it isn't specified it doesn't
matter.

>And what about sensual detail? Soft, salty, rose-scented?

Some of the "exceptions" demonstrate (to my mind) that the role an
adjective plays is not always constant. Frex, a "big cat" is a type
of cat (tiger, lion etc.) and so "big" is not a size.

You can even have a "big big cat" and a "small big cat". In the
second case "big small cat" would be wrong, it wouldn't refer
to a midget tiger, but it might mean a giant domestic moggy.

Jonathan

--
Backlog in rasfc: 150
Mail to spam auto-deleted, use jlc1 instead.
(That's jay ell cee one, if your font makes l and 1 look the same)

.