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
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/