Bruce,
    I am a little bit lost. I think we come at this from distinctively
different perspectives, so it may be our terminology is getting in the
way. I'll go into more detail about how I see it without necessarily
thinking of this as argument.
    To me, the determiners (and related words) function to ground the noun
within a discourse context, essentially identifying which member(s) of
the group we are talking about. That's why it's so hard to define "a"
and "the." They have no meaning outside of their discourse function.
Other true determiners would be the demonstratives, possessive
pronouns, or possessive nouns because they fill the same slot.
   "All the first seven job applicants were qualified." "All" is
predeterminer," "the" determiner, and "first" and "seven"
postdeterminers. All those are frozen into position. This is not a
stable subset of "applicant" or "job applicant," but a group that makes
sense only within this particular context.
    "job" is a noun modifier, and here, I think we might agree, we
definitely have a subset of "applicant". To do that truly, it ought to
be a culturally accepted subset. In other words, a "job applicant" is
a pretty stable subset. A "floor" lamp is a stable subset of lamps. If
I decided I want to buy a "cabin lamp," though, meaning a lamp for my
cabin, I don't think we can think of it as a subset. I don't think
there's a culturally understood notion of what a "cabin lamp" is all
about. Maybe propane or kerosene? Still, the noun modifiers are also
somewhat frozen in position, next to the head. I don't think of "blue"
as just a noun, by the way, because it is scalar. One flower can be
bluer than another. One applicant can't be "jober" than another.
That's a mildly secondary issue.
    Between these groups, the determiners (including pre and post
determiners) and the noun modifiers, some of which are almost like
compound nouns in being somewhat cognitively stable, communally shared
subsets, come the true adjectives, which are generally both movable
and coordinate. They may also have a role in helping someone identify
which one or ones you are talking about, but that will vary by
context, and it shouldn't, at least in my mind, influence whether or
not we use commas.
    These aren't all just in predicate noun phrases. Consider for example
"I bought a Mustang, drove it home, parked it in the driveway, looked
out the window, and admired its black, polished fenders in the warm
afternoon sun.  To me, "black," "polished," and "warm" are adding
additional descriptive information. We already know which fenders and
which sun are in discourse focus. That's not true if I say "I want
black, polished fenders" or "polished, black fenders" "on my car." I
would use commas in both instances.
   When we have a compound series of three or more (with "and" or "or"),
we always intonationally mark the compounded elements as we go. When
the "and" or "or" comes in at the end, it does so retroactively. The
comma between these movable, coordinate adjectives mirrors an
intonation marking in speech. That's why it is such a good test to put
"and" (or "or") between them.
    "I want a soft, hypoallergenic, embroidered pillow for that chair." It
seems to me that the characteristics most salient for pillows are
culturally influenced. None of these would be salient for a car. I can
change their order or replace the comma with "ands" and not
significantly change the meaning.

Craig



Craig,

 I said nothing of describing until I brought in restrictive
> and non-restrictive clauses that sometimes separate classification from
> identification.  I did mention hyponymic identification or the
> identification of a class, and you are right.  The adjectives that modify
> a noun in predicate position may all be brought into the indentification
> role, but it is the class of the subject that is being identified.  They
> still classify the noun vehicle in your examples.  The distinction of the
> roles of classification, indentification, and description (both
> restrictive and non-restrictive) can result in a very slippery set of
> definitions.  The adjectives and phrases that are built up can eventually
> involve them all.
>
 Bruce
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> From: Craig Hancock
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: grammar question--adjective series and commas
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:15:22 -0500
>
> Bruce,
>     The distinction between identifying and describing is not so easy to
> pin down, and it would certainly be context dependent.
>
> "I want a fast, classy looking, fuel efficient vehicle."
> "The Zebra X is a fast, classy looking, fuel efficient vehicle."
> In the first example, we have three identifying features. In the second,
> all are describing.
> I would use the same commas for both.
>
> Craig
>
> On 3/2/2011 7:03 AM, Bruce Despain wrote:


 Peter,

 Notice the
> difference between

 1. The big blue car
 2. The tall, massively
> muscled wrestler

 In (1) the classifiers are lined up in cartographic
> order: size, color; in (2) both modifiers relate to size.  Hence the comma
> is used.

 The idea with classifiers is that once one is used the noun
> is may be identified; additional classifiers of the same sort do not
> further identify the item.  If classifiers of a different sort are
> applied, then the item becomes better or more narrowly identified.  We
> come to be dealing with a smaller or more restricted class of items.  This
> makes the comma unnecessary.

 When identifiers are piled on, the item
> has already been identified and further modification of the same sort is
> non-restrictive. This is often the distinction between relative clauses
> introduced by "that" (identification) and "which, who" (non-restrictive).
> The former connective may be appropriate when the item is not identified,
> whereas the latter, when it already is.  This may be a means of clarifying
> classification.

 3. The blue car that is big (a big blue car)
 4. The
> big car that is blue (a big car that happens to be blue)
 5. The blue car
> which is big (a blue car that happens to be big)
 6. The big car which is
> blue (same as (4))

 So, when the adjectives are classifying, the
> restrictive vs. non-restrictive contrast helps to clarify the cartographic
> order.

 Sometimes the modifiers are are even more narrow in their
> classificatory function.  In (7) the adjectives modify the color, which is
> a noun being used transitorily as an adjective.

 7.  The deep dark
> blue car

 The noun blue is used attributively to classify the car.  The
> adjective dark is used to classify the color, not the car.  Then the
> adjective deep is used to classify the shade of dark blue, not the blue
> car.  Of course, the question of commas or shifting of rank is not
> applicable here.  In (8) the adjective deep might be interpreted either
> way.  In this case the comma might be helpful.

 8.  The deep dark blue
> water (the water that is a deep dark blue)
 9.  The deep, dark blue water
> (the dark blue water that is deep)

 So, even though the cartographic
> order in (9) is size then color, the comma has a different function
> [zeugmatic homonymic hyponym].  This is the list-comma.  It helps to group
> items with their modifiers.  When the list-comma is left out before the
> final item on a list, it is called the Oxford comma.  My own disposition
> is to use the Oxford comma, even when sometimes the presence of a
> conjunction would seem to make it redundant. But whether or not authors
> use the Oxford comma, I think it is important that they be consistent.
>
 Bruce
>
 P.S.  Sorry for the oxymoronic term, but I couldn't resist
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> From: "Peter H. Fries"
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: grammar question--adjective series and commas
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:51:36 -0700
>
>
 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  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:    [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/
> 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/