Help! I'm trapped inside a large, red, fluffy sweater!
-
Check this :) Why the green great dragon can't exist[^]
Mircea
-
Check this :) Why the green great dragon can't exist[^]
Mircea
Quote:
The order of adjectives, according to the book's author Mark Forsyth, has to be: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose.
So does "fluffy" count as opinion ("fluffy large red sweater" / "fluffy red sweater") or material ("large red fluffy sweater" / "red fluffy sweater")? :) "Fluffy large red" feels wrong to me. But "fluffy red" feels more righterish than "red fluffy". Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students! :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined" - Homer
-
Quote:
The order of adjectives, according to the book's author Mark Forsyth, has to be: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose.
So does "fluffy" count as opinion ("fluffy large red sweater" / "fluffy red sweater") or material ("large red fluffy sweater" / "red fluffy sweater")? :) "Fluffy large red" feels wrong to me. But "fluffy red" feels more righterish than "red fluffy". Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students! :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
My vote goes to 'fluffy large red sweater' but my vote doesn't count as I'm not a native and, no matter how much I enjoy learning the intricacies of this million-word mastodon, I'll never have a native's feeling (or accent) for it :)
Richard Deeming wrote:
Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students!
As I've said in a previous message, not long ago, English doesn't properly have a grammar: more a collection of use cases and exceptions :)
Mircea
-
Does it have the answer? If so, please post a quote of it. Nothing I've seen online so far has resolved my curiosity. I.e. I ain't clicking that.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I ain't clicking that.
Your loss. It's a nice little piece and it's safe (AFAIK BBC doesn't harbour dangerous stuff). Fluffy read sweater it is :)
Quote:
The order of adjectives, according to the book's author Mark Forsyth, has to be: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose.
Mircea
-
My vote goes to 'fluffy large red sweater' but my vote doesn't count as I'm not a native and, no matter how much I enjoy learning the intricacies of this million-word mastodon, I'll never have a native's feeling (or accent) for it :)
Richard Deeming wrote:
Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students!
As I've said in a previous message, not long ago, English doesn't properly have a grammar: more a collection of use cases and exceptions :)
Mircea
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I ain't clicking that.
Your loss. It's a nice little piece and it's safe (AFAIK BBC doesn't harbour dangerous stuff). Fluffy read sweater it is :)
Quote:
The order of adjectives, according to the book's author Mark Forsyth, has to be: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose.
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
Mark Forsyth
Then I've already read it. And it does not answer my question.
-
My vote goes to 'fluffy large red sweater' but my vote doesn't count as I'm not a native and, no matter how much I enjoy learning the intricacies of this million-word mastodon, I'll never have a native's feeling (or accent) for it :)
Richard Deeming wrote:
Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students!
As I've said in a previous message, not long ago, English doesn't properly have a grammar: more a collection of use cases and exceptions :)
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
a collection of use cases and exceptions
On that, we agree.
-
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
a collection of use cases and exceptions
On that, we agree.
-
Quote:
The order of adjectives, according to the book's author Mark Forsyth, has to be: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose.
So does "fluffy" count as opinion ("fluffy large red sweater" / "fluffy red sweater") or material ("large red fluffy sweater" / "red fluffy sweater")? :) "Fluffy large red" feels wrong to me. But "fluffy red" feels more righterish than "red fluffy". Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students! :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Even if so, why does it seem (to me at least) that they should swap positions in this case? </rhetorical> I don't see "fluffy" as opinion or material. Where does texture go in the order?
Richard Deeming wrote:
"Fluffy large red" feels wrong to me. But "fluffy red" feels more righterish than "red fluffy"
So I guess I'm not alone anyway.
-
Check this :) Why the green great dragon can't exist[^]
Mircea
P.S. Not really as a response to you, but as further thought your response have provoked. Regarding "green great dragon": If the writer has established "great dragon" as a thing, then I can see "green great dragon" being acceptable. The castle is guarded by three great dragons. The main drawbridge is guarded by a green great dragon. Upon the keep sits a red great dragon, watching all directions. And deep in the dungeon lurks a blue great dragon.
-
P.S. Not really as a response to you, but as further thought your response have provoked. Regarding "green great dragon": If the writer has established "great dragon" as a thing, then I can see "green great dragon" being acceptable. The castle is guarded by three great dragons. The main drawbridge is guarded by a green great dragon. Upon the keep sits a red great dragon, watching all directions. And deep in the dungeon lurks a blue great dragon.
Doesn’t that make “great dragon” more of a title than an attribute, like in “grand master”? Just a thought.
Mircea
-
P.S. Not really as a response to you, but as further thought your response have provoked. Regarding "green great dragon": If the writer has established "great dragon" as a thing, then I can see "green great dragon" being acceptable. The castle is guarded by three great dragons. The main drawbridge is guarded by a green great dragon. Upon the keep sits a red great dragon, watching all directions. And deep in the dungeon lurks a blue great dragon.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The castle is guarded by three great dragons. The main drawbridge is guarded by a green great dragon. Upon the keep sits a red great dragon, watching all directions. And deep in the dungeon lurks a blue great dragon.
It just sounds wrong when you say it, even though I was previously unaware of this rule.
-
Doesn’t that make “great dragon” more of a title than an attribute, like in “grand master”? Just a thought.
Mircea
Yeah, kinda maybe. But more like [hot dog] and [ugly sweater] act as nouns rather than as a noun with an adjective.
-
Check this :) Why the green great dragon can't exist[^]
Mircea
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The castle is guarded by three great dragons. The main drawbridge is guarded by a green great dragon. Upon the keep sits a red great dragon, watching all directions. And deep in the dungeon lurks a blue great dragon.
It just sounds wrong when you say it, even though I was previously unaware of this rule.
I know. But I can English with the best of 'em.
-
My vote goes to 'fluffy large red sweater' but my vote doesn't count as I'm not a native and, no matter how much I enjoy learning the intricacies of this million-word mastodon, I'll never have a native's feeling (or accent) for it :)
Richard Deeming wrote:
Sometimes I think 90% of the English language was invented to torture ESL students!
As I've said in a previous message, not long ago, English doesn't properly have a grammar: more a collection of use cases and exceptions :)
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
more a collection of use cases and A LOT OF exceptions :)
FTFY
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Did that sound right to you? It does to me. As a native (U.S.) English speaker, I was of course not taught that there is a rule guideline to how we order adjectives -- but ESL students are taught a rule. As I was lay awake this morning I thought about this. I think the above is in accordance with the rule. But what if I drop the "large" -- I would describe it as a "fluffy, red sweater" rather than a "red, fluffy sweater". I know there are many highly fluent non-native English speakers in the room -- what does your experience tell you? Can both be "correct"? Is there a nuance to the rule which swaps these? If both size and color are specified, do they gravitate together? (And don't get me started on separating adjectives with COMMAs.)
Tactile versus visual? Objective versus subjective? Large, fluffy, red ... The label also says Large (L); but makes no reference to fluffy or red; though fluffy might be implied in the material and washing instructions. "Non-white" is implied if told to wash separately with like colors.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Did that sound right to you? It does to me. As a native (U.S.) English speaker, I was of course not taught that there is a rule guideline to how we order adjectives -- but ESL students are taught a rule. As I was lay awake this morning I thought about this. I think the above is in accordance with the rule. But what if I drop the "large" -- I would describe it as a "fluffy, red sweater" rather than a "red, fluffy sweater". I know there are many highly fluent non-native English speakers in the room -- what does your experience tell you? Can both be "correct"? Is there a nuance to the rule which swaps these? If both size and color are specified, do they gravitate together? (And don't get me started on separating adjectives with COMMAs.)
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
As I was lay awake this morning
In terms of two people speaking to each other... The real value is in the word 'trapped'. The rest provides only limited value in the context to the other person. After all for example if it was small versus large would that really change anything? But if I was the other person I would be more curious as to why you were laying in bed wearing a sweater like that in the first place. And if you were not in fact wearing it then why were you thinking about it in the first place.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
As I was lay awake this morning
In terms of two people speaking to each other... The real value is in the word 'trapped'. The rest provides only limited value in the context to the other person. After all for example if it was small versus large would that really change anything? But if I was the other person I would be more curious as to why you were laying in bed wearing a sweater like that in the first place. And if you were not in fact wearing it then why were you thinking about it in the first place.
I'm guessing you've never lain awake in the morning. Hmm?
-
Did that sound right to you? It does to me. As a native (U.S.) English speaker, I was of course not taught that there is a rule guideline to how we order adjectives -- but ESL students are taught a rule. As I was lay awake this morning I thought about this. I think the above is in accordance with the rule. But what if I drop the "large" -- I would describe it as a "fluffy, red sweater" rather than a "red, fluffy sweater". I know there are many highly fluent non-native English speakers in the room -- what does your experience tell you? Can both be "correct"? Is there a nuance to the rule which swaps these? If both size and color are specified, do they gravitate together? (And don't get me started on separating adjectives with COMMAs.)
As a native English speaker, I've never consciously thought about the order of adjectives, but your observation is interesting. It seems like there's a natural inclination to say "fluffy, red sweater" rather than "red, fluffy sweater" when both size and color are specified. Theorder might indeed follow an unspoken rule, at least in common usage.
Reflecting on it, I'd say both could be correct, but there might be a subtle nuance to consider. Perhaps the order could be influenced by emphasis or personal preference. I'd be curious to hear the perspectives of those who learned English as a second language—whether there's a formal rule in their teaching or if it's something they've intuited through experience. Language can be wonderfully flexible, and these nuances add to its richness!
