I haven't read this discussion systematically, but in the messages that I
have read, it seems to me that the discussion has not directly addressed the
fact that inserting a comma into a series of modifiers (not just adjectives)
within a noun phrase may be significant, not merely a matter of convention.
Some have mentioned the possibility that a comma might indicate a
conjunction of adjectives as in
a. _The big blue car_ or _the tall, massively muscled wrestler_
Can be paraphrased as
b. _the big and blue car_ and _the tall and massively muscled wrestler_
(I apologize for my made-up examples. I'm away from my files and can't
recover them.)
But there is a consequence of this interpretation for the ways that these
adjectives function within the whole. The examples in a, with no comma or
conjunction, may be interpreted as restrictive* modifiers in which 'blue'
modifies (restricts the reference of) 'car' and 'big' modifies (restricts
the reference of) 'blue car'. **
But such a restrictive interpretation is impossible when commas or a
conjunction is present.
The adjectives in example b both modify 'car' ('wrestler') directly.
This implication allows people to insert commas between elements of the noun
phrase which clearly do not function in the same way within the noun phrase.
In this way the comma is not equivalent to the conjunction 'and'.
For example, if in a text I mention that there are two approaches to a
problem, of which one is a true application of a particular theory, I may
follow up that assertion with a description of each approach, beginning my
discussion of the true application with the phrase
_The first, true application of this theory…_
The presence of the comma, by preventing a restrictive reading, allows me to
say that this theory is the first that I will mention, not the first one
that occurred (as would be implied by the wording _the first true
application of this theory…_
Note: *Some may object to my use of the term 'restrictive' here. I don’t
particularly stand behind it. It's the best word I could think of without
spending considerable time searching for one. In any case my point is that
there is a difference in potential relation among the various modifiers when
there is a comma and when there is no comma.
** A number of people have mentioned the normal sequence of adjectives. As
some of you have said, generally the modifiers that appear closer to the
head noun are considered related more closely to the head. (It seems to me
that Robert Dixon discussed in some detail an elaborated sequence for
modifiers within the noun phrase, based on meaning types and the usual
relations to the nouns they modify. Unfortunately I can't remember either
the details of his approach or reference for it.)
Peter
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Bruce,
> In reworking your examples in my mind, I find it easy to find versions
> that seem just as natural as the version you present as the most
> natural. Everything might depend on what you were looking for in a rug.
> For the color scheme and size of a room, it might be most important
> that it be large and green. For an employee, you might want someone
> smart and reliable and not care so much about age or size. You mention
> that the work is being done in Italy. Do they propose it for Italian?
> For all languages? What would the basis of that be? What would they say
> about a language like Spanish, where the adjectives come after the
> noun?
> The usual explanation for English is that we have pre-deteminers,
> determiners, post-deteminers, true adjectives, noun modifiers, the head
> noun, and then postnominal groups (like prepositional phrases.)
> Dick gives a good example of an adjective noun combination (sweet
> tooth) that constitutes a set phrase, but for the most part, those are
> noun noun combinations, like ice cream or death wish or rest stop.
> Traditional grammar often lists "movable or coordinate" adjectives as
> requiring commas, the test being whether you can change the order
> without significantly altering meaning and whether it feels OK to put
> an "and" between them. Generally, this is true of the true adjectives
> (the truly scalar terms). Of course, they want to call everything that
> modifies a noun an adjective, which makes it necessary to come up with
> a sub-category.
> You leave me wondering how they tested for this scale and whether it
> might be language or culture specific and whether it would hold true no
> matter what it was you were describing.
>
>
> Craig
>
>
> Scott, Some recent work in this area (in Italy) calls the natural order
> > of adjectives in the noun phrase its cartography. The grammarian tries
> > different orders to determine the natural order of classification. Hence
> > you might try to make a maximal stretch of adjectives like: She sold
> her
> > a certain expensive charming large square ancient green hand woven
> > Armenian carpet at auction. In this noun phrase there is a ranking of
> > the eight features: origin, style, color, age, shape, size, appeal, and
> > value. The the possible adjective orders map to a scalar value of rank.
> > Such adjectives as classify measures, e.gg., capacity, weight, volume,
> > length, width, etc., might all share the same rank as size. Examples of
> > some even farther from these eight are: sixteenth, equal, similar, chief,
> > which come first (opposite order as given). The investigator tries
> > different orders for pairs of adjectives and determines what the most
> > natural ranking is a step at a time. When two adjectives fall in the
> same
> > rank, they characterize it as belonging to that particular class. If the
> > order is not natural, or the adjectives fall into the same rank, then a
> > comma is required; sort of like a pause to adjust the thinking relative
> to
> > their classification. In my paraphrastic grammar I call this
> adjective
> > accumulation. The structure of the noun phrase is recursively
> > left-branching. There is a similar phenomenon with the natural ordering
> > of adverbials, but in a right-branching structure. Just for fun I made
> up
> > a very long sentence with both kinds of accumulation (not advisable, but
> > kinda fun): "The unique $46,000 92 degree hot uncomfortable large
> 5-foot
> > by 5-foot by 15-foot two ton almost 12 year old broken-down square open
> > deep dark green American steel Hummer was driven flawlessly by a
> > professional at 6 miles an hour and 3 thousand revolutions per minute for
> > a dozen miles on Route 66 from Albuquerque to the junction twice for four
> > hours on Monday from 8:00 a. m. till noon." Bruce
> >
> > --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > From: Dick Veit
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: grammar question--adjective series and commas
> > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:05:07 -0500
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > Consider the difference between these two:
> > my troublesome, sweet sister my troublesome sweet toothIn 1, both
> > "troublesome" and "sweet" modify "sister." My sister is troublesome but
> > sweet.
> > In 2, "sweet" modifies "tooth," and "troublesome" modifies "sweet tooth."
> > My sweet tooth is troublesome.
> >
> > When two or more adjectives (as in 1) modify a noun in parallel, they are
> > separated by commas. When one adjective modifies a phrase that contains
> an
> > adjective (as in 2), no comma is used.
> >
> > Other examples:
> > a tall, dark, handsome stranger [tall & dark &
> > handsome] stranger
> > the best inexpensive Italian restaurant the [best [inexpensive
> > [Italian restaurant]]]
> > Dick
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Scott Woods wrote:
> > Dear List, The following phrases seem different to me: my
> > beautiful gray Persian cat my large black leather coat my large
> > gray Persian cat my beautiful black leather coat my old sad mangy
> > cat my sweet old Irish grandmother my beautiful Irish linen
> > tablecloth Some of these need commas between some of the adjectives,
> > but others seem not to. Do you agree? How can this be explained?
> > Thanks, Scott Woods
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
> > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> > leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
> > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> > leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or
> > leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
> > the list"
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
--
Peter H. Fries
From December 20, 2010 to May 1, 2011
3661 N. Campbell Ave
Box 290
Tucson AZ 85719
Phone: 520-529-0824
Cell: 989-400-3764
From May 1, 2011 to December 2011
Box 310
Mount Pleasant MI 48804
Phone: 989-644-3384
Cell: 989-400-3764
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web page: <http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml<http://cmich.edu/chsbs/x23516.xml>>
[among 'emeritus faculty']
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
