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" <[log in to unmask]>
> 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 <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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 <http://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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Dick Veit
> > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Web page: <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/
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/
|
