Forum: Author Hangout

Consider "an ugly old hat" vs. "an old ugly hat". The latter just doesn't sound as natural.

I've seen variations on this "rule" too, but to me it is NOT a rule being imposed, but an attempt to identify and document what happens and seems natural to speakers.
The example that convinced me was "big red round ball". Every other order of saying them just sounds off.
I'm not sure where, but a grammar guide with that example was making the point no commas are needed that if you have a series of these most common types of adjectives - in the right order!
That seems consistent with the point SB made if adjectives sound wrong if the order is reversed, then no comma should be used.

The little white house in Maple Street - assumes there are two or more white houses, but only one is a little house.

The white little house in Maple Street - assumes there are two or more little houses but only one is white.

Both are wrong. The house is on Maple street, not in Maple street.

Except, a state or a country is a fictional (purely invented by man) invention, so you live "IN" it's definitions, rather than on a particular physical place (like a street).

You need to be careful of that one. You can live IN New York but you live ON the Hudson River (on a boat, not in a boat).

In England (around here anyway) you live in [name of street]

You need to be careful of that one. You can live IN New York but you live ON the Hudson River (on a boat, not in a boat).

Here is how it breaks down for me.

From a logical, geometric, geographic perspective,

Political entities (nations, cities) are areas. You are in an area, not on an area.

Roads, rivers, and other similar things are lines.

You are on a line, not in a line.

A line at a store checkout or for a ticket booth is different. This is not a line in a geometric sense, but rather it is a queue, a container, and you are in a container

much like a military officer is no longer active duty, they become a vet.

There are other options. Death or court-martial action that might take away his commission and put him in jail. Or five star generals are never retired, they just don't have duties with troops or in a headquarters. Sometimes they get elected President and are no longer on active duty but are still commander in chief. I try not to say "never" or "always." Exceptions may violate your rule.

I try not to say "never" or "always."

Never trust anyone who says "never".

I would describe it as an oblong leather ball before calling it a round ball. It's not round. It has a rounded side. But to me, a round ball is like a tennis ball.

if you take two cross sections of a football, one along the long axis and the other perpendicular to the long axis, the second cross section will be a circle. Circles are round.

What is the only sport played with a ball that isn't round?

Trick question. There is no sport played with a ball that isn't round on at least on axis.

If you asked about balls that weren't fully symmetrical like a foot ball, it would still be a trick question, because there are two. Rugby and American Football.

What is the only sport played with a ball that isn't round?

Watersports?

I mean you have skiing, track, etc. And, btw, water polo is played with a round ball.

I don't think that's the kind of watersports he was thinking of. :)

I guess the test for the ball being round is to bounce it.

Non spherical balls do in fact bounce, but if you mean in a predictable manner, then you should check out Australian Rules Football (AFL) where the non-spherical (ruby style) ball is bounced on turf often and repeatedly in a completely predictable manner. It just takes shit-loads of practice!

What are the quantifiable limits which qualify for a "shit-load"?

How many bowel movements does it take to fill a honey wagon. :)

limits which qualify for a "shit-load"?

At least an hour every day, starting in the womb, if you want to do it running at full speed so you won't cost your team a free kick because you were 'caught holding the ball'.

What are the quantifiable limits which qualify for a "shit-load"?

It is a subjective measure. It's more than an ass-load but still less than a fuckton.

It is a subjective measure. It's more than an ass-load but still less than a fuckton.

A fuckton sounds like a unit that would be used to measure the destructive capacity of a thermonuclear sex bomb.

A fuckton sounds like a unit

According to one unreliable source (on Reddit) there are 10 shit-loads per metric fuckton. In English measurements, it's about 66/7 shit-loads per fuckton. Most people prefer to use metric.

@Ross, my "flat round ball" objection wasn't that a ball had to be either round or spherical, only that it not be flat, unless we're describing things which are not inflated, like Frisbees

Someone else objected "balls are round by definition". Balls to them too!

I do not find the objection that a round ball cannot be flat so objectionable.

The thing that often drives me up the wall is the constant nit-picking gotchas pointing some supposed contradiction between a couple of words, taken completely out of context.

I never mind when anyone makes a joke out of pointing out someones slip up or oversight. I do (or attempt) that all the time myself, and I'd admit to a particular mischievous pleasure when I spot one of your typos I can poke fun at.

It's just pointing some trivial error that annoys me, as if it's showing how clever they are. It just seems sad and pathetic to me.

I sometimes get angry when it only wastes my time while I am trying to seriously discuss which are of some importance to authors, editors, and readers alike.

EDIT TO ADD AFTER ACCIDENTAL POSTING

... For example, this thread. Just how should authors order and punctuate a long list of adjectives to make them read as smoothly and easily as possible? Isn't that why most of us are here?

The infamous 'big red round ball' was introduced to this thread by me, when I said it was the example I had seen that convinced me there exists a "natural order" speakers tend to use when saying a list of adjectives. Every other order of saying those three adjectives just sounded off to me. No idea why. Does not matter why. Just is. But what is very important to us here is others have investigated this and documented classifications we can use that (almost?) always help us easily find an order that does sound natural.

This time really shits me because it was not even my example! And I made that clear when I introduced it.

If they is anything wrong or dubious in grammatical points I am trying to make, go ahead, throw whatever criticisms you have at me! I want you to do that, because there are many tricky and subtle points I am struggling hard to learn.

But when it's nothing more an insignificant choice of words in an example chosen to demonstrate a point of grammar ... Give me a break! I've got far more important things to do than bother with others desperate need to one-up others.

Regarding your objection to my use of flat and round (and I had introduced that in addition to my initial quote to demonstrate some other grammatical point) I am a bit contemptuous of that objection too. I used an idiomatic expression, correctly, to make some other point. From now on, I will probably just respond, "Go to Hell," to anyone who makes nit-picking technical objections to my use of idiomatic expressions."

So, with respect to you because I very much value the insights and thoughtfulness of most of your contributions to these forums, in this instance my response is: "

If you'd ever kicked a bloody football in your life you'd understand that flat meant inadequately inflated, and you'd say round instead of spherical or whatever simply because saying anything else makes you sound like you've got a baseball bat shoved up your arse, or if you prefer ass!" [WDR & :-) to CW]

Will I stop making nitty (not clever by half) remarks? I doubt it.

I NEVER object when someone attempts to make a joke, even a bad one.
You were sort of in the wrong place at the wrong time with this one. :-)

She sat on his lap.
She sat in his lap.
I believe they're both correct.

I looked this up recently in Oxford dictionary while editing for a British writer. It had a 'grammar point' and I was surprised to see it recommended (dictated ?) sit on a chair, in a lounge, or at a table.
It didn't mention lap. I suppose it depends on how much padding he has.

Unless you write: He sat in a cushy chair.

The devil in my ear is urging me to insist the only correct option is: He sat into a cushy chair - just to see what kind of outraged responses I would get. :-)

I'm sorry, but I'm a stickler for the exact definitions here. The street is in a map, as is the house, but that doesn't mean the house is "in" the street. If it was, then none of the cars could get by it.

Local usages may vary, but some young kid in India is gonna read that and think "What the fuck?" In such a case, I'd stick to the stricter definition.

Given no other clues, I would assume a house *in* Maple Street is in UK, and *on* Maple is in the US. *In* is, indeed, the correct usage in British English. The hypothetical kid in India would have been taught BE -- the addresses in India use the *in the street* convention.

(Unless it's something like Off Karve Road, but that's a whole different story).

The little white house in Maple Street - assumes there are two or more white houses, but only one is a little house.
The white little house in Maple Street - assumes there are two or more little houses but only one is white.
In the many millions of words I've written I can't think of an actual example where this rule has a relevancy to what I wrote, or it would have an effect.

I think you are citing situations where writers choose to not use the most common order. My guess is:
"little white house" means little and white house
"white, little house" means it is more important that the house is white than little.

Does the purple people eater only eat purple people

No. That would be the purple-people eater.

One of my pet peeves (I don't have a lot of pets, so make do with peeves)

I own ten cats (or am owned by them?).
It doesn't stop me getting very peevish. :-)

Dogs have masters, cats have staff.

Dogs have masters

No, if done right, dogs have a pack/family. Of course, a pack has an alpha, but I've seen cases where the dog was top dog.

Dogs have masters, cats have staff

Dogs have masters, cats have slaves, and pigs have peers.

EDITED TO ADD

I asked some peers whether they thought it was acceptable to call an American football 'round'. They were adamant that was correct, and they preferred others use that expression rather than any alternatives. :-)

I suppose the only adjective here is Free as Customers and Parking are both nouns. At least I think so, its been a long, long time since my last English class.

One of those English lessons many years ago would have mentioned that nouns VERY OFTEN act as adjectives modifying other nouns.
In this case I see no problem with customer acting as an adjective to modify parking, but forming a compound noun then modified by free.

It's there although the Cambridge one differs slightly.

So what was the Cambridge one?

The Cambridge Dictionary lists a slightly different order: opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, colour, origin, material, type, purpose.

With size, shape, age, colour and material all separately listed, I am at a loss as to what "physical quality" could possibly cover.

physical quality

light, heavy, blonde, brunette, tumescent, flaccid?

AJ

light, heavy, blonde, brunette, tumescent, flaccid?

Light: color and/or size

Heavy, tumescent: size

blonde, brunette: colors.

flaccid: quality, shape, and/or type.

The Cambridge Dictionary lists a slightly different order: opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, colour, origin, material, type, purpose

Apparently, my big red round ball went to Cambridge. :-)

I wonder if it's when the order matches the "rule."

Yes, it is, but they must be the last adjectives in the list.

I think it is correct (and it sounds like this if you say them out aloud.

You can have: flat, big red round ball

But you would need: big, red, round, flat ball

BTW to SB: You can guess how smug I'm feeling now after ignoring all those nay sayers who kept who kept on insisting all the style were useless, and they did not need them. They are needed, or some knowlegde of what's in them some times to identify what will work better when what you have sounds wrong. Thank you for encouraging me to go down that path.

EDIT TO ADD: looking at later posts, flat is probably a physical condition, so
Best may be: big flat red round ball
That sounds right to me.

@Crumbly Writer
Best may be: big flat red round ball
How do you have both flat and round? Isn't it one or the other?

@SwitchBlayde
Someone could have poked a hole in your round ball and now it's a "flat big red round ball." Of course "flat" would have to move to the front because it's describing the condition of a "big red round ball."

To CW: I was using flat as its physical condition, and probably only used in contexts after the need for a bicycle pump has been mentioned.

To SB: There is always the option of taking something out of the "standard order" in order to emphasise that adjective, only to do that you need a comma after flat, followed by remainder without commas.

The intent of this list is not to specify what order adjective strings are used, it is to identify which do not need commas when in the correct position - because that reflects the way natural speakers would phrase them.

How do you have both flat and round?

Easy, a disk is flat and round; coins, records, CDs Frisbees.

big flat red round ball

A ball is by definition round, so that's redundant.
Flat could be an inflatable ball that is uninflated or under inflated.

A football isn't round.

Yes it is, if you look at the short cross section. :)

Either had I so i Googled it. You're right. It's there although the Cambridge one differs slightly.

I would appreciate both links if you can find them again.

There are times it feels better not to put a comma between adjectives. I wonder if it's when the order matches the "rule."

A 79-yo black man entered.
A black, 79-yo man entered.

This is where writing comes in as the two, though passing the same objective data, say something different. This is what separates good writers from average writers, i.e. the ability to shape language in such a way that emotion can be conveyed. At least for fiction writers.

The comma rule comes down to the difference between two kinds of adjectives: coordinate adjectives and cumulative adjectives.

Thanks for identifying that.

I suspect a more specific description would be:

"The comma rule firstly requires writers to identify two kinds of adjectives: ..."

... then cumulative adjectives must be separated by commas, but coordinate adjectives in limited (but the most frequently used) circumstances MAY have no commas.

I suspect (again not sure) the examples I have been citing are all coordinate adjectives; AND the conditions required for commas not to be used include:

- the writer has not chosen to use it at the head of their list, for emphasis when a comma is needed, and

- the adjectives must be in the correct order, AND at the end of the list (just before the noun) for commas to omitted. They should be omitted if possible to spare readers the burden of pauses for something reads smoothly without them.

It also appears the list of categories is not totally fixed. It is, after all, merely attempting to identify how natural speakers usually say things. Grammar girl had an example of that.

Some are effectively fixed: speakers always tend to specify size, colour, and shape in that order. There's no reason why. It just is what happens.

I think the test here is what sounds natural and flows smoothly, but if in doubt, looking up the list and trying them in that order will almost certainly give you something that sounds so natural you can (and should) omit commas.

I am not objecting to your comment, but will note you've come into a conversation about something else.
You are correct that there are quite a lot of adjectives that can only be used as 'adjective noun', and not as 'noun is adjective' as most can.
FYI, you will understand what is being discussed here better when you realise we have been discussing the best order for lists of nouns coming before nouns, and whether they must be separated by commas. :-)

balls can only be round

Maybe it's round (having a curved surface with no sharp projections), but not spherical?

It was an attempted joke, but weak and framed badly.
I was irritated by a stupid comment that 'round ball' is redundant. It is something almost every speaker of English would say.
In Australia, we often call soccer 'the round ball game', to distinguish from three other codes of football with ovoid shaped balls. Round is NOT redundant in that expression.

Geometry teaches pie are square, but really pie are round, cornbread are square.

+10

I've made the same joke several times, but I generally use brownies for it.

I've made the same joke several times, but I generally use brownies for it.

I would prefer to eat Brownies.

I would prefer to eat Brownies.

Girl Scouts are better.

Nah! The only thing Girl Scouts want you to eat are their cookies. :)

If you want a BJ, it's only fair to eat her cookie. :P

REP 9/11/2016, 10:02:31 PM

@Dominions Son
Girl Scouts are better.

Nah! The only thing Girl Scouts want you to eat are their cookies. :)

Yeah... What REP said

I think it might be English from England. They spell color as "colour". The credits flashed by but I thought I saw something about London as where the studio was.

For the record, the categories and order it suggests are:
General opinion
Specific opinion
Size
Shape
Age
Colour
Origin
Construction