9 ms·

This is more opinion than fact, as someone who's written professionally but doesn't understand the grammar of his natural language at any deep level: I don't th

This is more opinion than fact, as someone who's written professionally but doesn't understand the grammar of his natural language at any deep level: I don't think there are rules, only guidelines, just as there are no firm rules on when to split an infinitive or end with a preposition (those are usually bad style, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with them, and sometimes they're right thing to do.) In fact, often there are semantic distinctions that ordering betrays, which obviates hard-and-fast rules: * "A vegetarian Russian lawyer", to me, suggests an attorney of Russian law who is also a vegetarian. * "A Russian, vegetarian lawyer" suggests a vegetarian lawyer of Russian descent. Ethnicity isn't as important as what kind of law is being practiced, so in this case it's looser-binding and farther from the noun. I tend to put appearance-related (especially size) adjectives earlier, because it replicates an order of perception. "Big red coat." First, you see something (~5 ms) large (a blob, until it's processed) and then color (~10 ms) comes in, and finally (~50 ms) you focus on its purpose-- it's a coat. Numbers always come first, for the same reason, even though the way we process small numbers (discrete, under 7) is different from the way we process large ones (continuous, 25+). Size usually comes second. However, there's an art to it, because presentation order also betrays order of impression. "Fat kids, of whom there were nine." You're focusing on them being fat, not how many there are. (You wouldn't say "fat nine kids" because that might suggest an age of 9.) It seems, to me, like the pattern for appearance-related, concrete adjectives is to go first-to-last by perceptual ordering ("big red bike") but to go least-to-most by importance ordering for abstract concepts ("the new great thing").

ColinWright 14y ago
> This is more opinion than fact ... Can you provide evidence of this? Given the number of places I've found pretty much exactly the same thing being stated, I'd love to see evidence to the contrary. Thanks.
- bane 14y ago
  Any study of Linguistics will tell you that any known and repeated structure in a language is the observation of custom not of rules. There is no Congress of Languages that passes a Law of Tongues, no first principle of language that requires things to be conjugated this way or ordered in this way. Language is a temporary contract between the speaker and the listener. A protocol that if I use these sounds in this way, I have a pretty good notion that information will be transferred to the listener. Over time, as needs change, the contract changes and what I need to say to transfer information changes. More importantly, I have to keep track of several contracts because not all listeners have signed the same one! This is called code-switching, and it's why I talk to my boss differently than to my much younger niece than to my mechanic. Language prescriptivists don't seem to understand that and will refer to their favorite dictionary and grammar guide (usually published sometime between the 18th and 19th centuries and written by people of the same ilk trying desperately to coax order from chaos) as if they contained the great laws handed down from the God of Languages and will try and convert the World by force to sign the contract that they think all the world should be on. There are no rules in language, only guidelines.
  - setrofim_ 14y ago
    None of which suggests that the stated rules (or "guidelines", if you prefer) are "more opinion than fact". Yes, they are not as strict as rules of, say, mathematics; and you won't be thrown in jail by the grammar police for braking them. However, there is a customary way of ordering adjectives, and ignoring it will make you sound less natural. I am in a strange (though these days perhaps not that unusual) situation of speaking English as a second language but being more comfortable with it than with my native tongue. I was never in a primary school and was never officially taught any grammar rules. Yet to me, "red big coat" sounds as strange as it would to a native speaker. A language is defined by its usage, and the rules/guidelines do shift with time. However, at any particular point there are definitely a "right" and a "wrong" way to construct a sentence. Therefore these rules (weak as they are) are definitely not just "opinion" that can be freely ignored. A rule defined by custom is still a rule.
    - bane 14y ago
      Nobody said you have to or even should ignore them, just understand that they aren't hard and fast rules. It's incumbent on the language producer to understand the customs that need to be observed to make themselves understood. Not following the custom will seem strange at best and at worst will prevent you from being understood. That's all there is to it. What is opinion is that some people think that there are hard rules to language and it's simply not the case...it's their opinion that there are such rules, even if fact doesn't support their opinion.
      - ColinWright 14y ago
        You seem to have a strange definition of "opinion" ... > What is opinion is that some people think > that there are hard rules to language ... No, it is a fact that some people think that there are hard rules to language. But all this is beside the point. Yes, you are absolutely right that language is fluid, changing, different in different places, and trying to produce "proper rules" and "proper grammars" (by some hard-to-define meaning of the word "proper") is like nailing jello to a wall. You can try, but you won't have much luck. That being said, there are some "rules" which, if you follow them, help you to communicate effectively most of the time. There will be exceptions, and there will be geographical variances, and these are not rules of the language, but rather, they are rules for you to follow while synthesizing constructions. To be honest, I expect you are in violent agreement, and arguing with attitudes you have found elsewhere, but which I do not hold.
zeidrich 14y ago
When I read "A Russian, vegetarian lawyer" I think of some strange Russian practitioner of vegetarian law, or a defendant of vegetarians. On the other hand, the first statement implies the correct idea that he's a lawyer who is Russian and a vegetarian. Context is important. You're talking about a lawyer. Why does the fact that he's a vegetarian need description at all? When I read a statement like that, I guess I compose it right to left. Big red bike would be (Big (Red Bike)) the lawyer would be (Vegetarian (Russian Lawyer)) Where Big modifies the Red Bike, and Vegetarian modifies the Russian Lawyer. The statement in the article with Tolkien and "Great Green Dragon" vs. "Green Great Dragon" would be the same sort of scenario. Are you clarifying the color of the Great Dragon, or are you modifying the size of the Green Dragon. Does "Great Dragon" have some significance past just it's size? You would say "Smiling great white shark", you would never say "Great smiling white shark". Aural perception and reading perception are going to be different too. You can especially add pauses to emphasize relationships. "A Russian ... vegetarian(emphasis) ... lawyer" might clarify that you're speaking about a Russian man who is a vegetarian and a lawyer, and that you're maybe drawing attention to some contrast or contradiction because he is vegetarian.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  But that doesn't explain why (Big Bike) is fine, and so is (Red Bike) but (Red (Big Bike) seems somehow wrong - odd or forced, and would only be used in some special case. The only explanation is that we use internal, unnoticed rules for which order these adjectives occur in.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dthunt 14y ago
  > Context is important. In written languages without word breaks, there's a particular problem with figuring out where one word stops and another begins; I would offer that this is a related problem to this adjective ordering problem. In practice, with adequate experience, a party who is not trying to be intentionally confusing will generally avoid constructions he knows to be ambiguous.
vacri 14y ago
Your two 'Russian' examples are different cases because you've thrown a comma into one of them. A lot of what you say is covered in the rules in the first answer, which themselves don't claim to be final. There are also examples given where numbers come after adjectives - 'the first three days' is the normal way of saying that phase, and reordering it to 'the three first days' is usually only when you're waxing poetical. Or "this long weekend will be the greatest three days of your life!" sounds perfectly normal, and is subtly different to "... will be the three greatest days...".
kyrias 14y ago
> I don't think there are rules, only guidelines Every so called grammar "rule" ever written (for natural languages) are written after observing how people spake and write.

ColinWright 14y ago

> This is more opinion than fact ... Can you provide evidence of this? Given the number of places I've found pretty much exactly the same thing being stated, I'd love to see evidence to the contrary. Thanks.

bane 14y ago
Any study of Linguistics will tell you that any known and repeated structure in a language is the observation of custom not of rules. There is no Congress of Languages that passes a Law of Tongues, no first principle of language that requires things to be conjugated this way or ordered in this way. Language is a temporary contract between the speaker and the listener. A protocol that if I use these sounds in this way, I have a pretty good notion that information will be transferred to the listener. Over time, as needs change, the contract changes and what I need to say to transfer information changes. More importantly, I have to keep track of several contracts because not all listeners have signed the same one! This is called code-switching, and it's why I talk to my boss differently than to my much younger niece than to my mechanic. Language prescriptivists don't seem to understand that and will refer to their favorite dictionary and grammar guide (usually published sometime between the 18th and 19th centuries and written by people of the same ilk trying desperately to coax order from chaos) as if they contained the great laws handed down from the God of Languages and will try and convert the World by force to sign the contract that they think all the world should be on. There are no rules in language, only guidelines.
- setrofim_ 14y ago
  None of which suggests that the stated rules (or "guidelines", if you prefer) are "more opinion than fact". Yes, they are not as strict as rules of, say, mathematics; and you won't be thrown in jail by the grammar police for braking them. However, there is a customary way of ordering adjectives, and ignoring it will make you sound less natural. I am in a strange (though these days perhaps not that unusual) situation of speaking English as a second language but being more comfortable with it than with my native tongue. I was never in a primary school and was never officially taught any grammar rules. Yet to me, "red big coat" sounds as strange as it would to a native speaker. A language is defined by its usage, and the rules/guidelines do shift with time. However, at any particular point there are definitely a "right" and a "wrong" way to construct a sentence. Therefore these rules (weak as they are) are definitely not just "opinion" that can be freely ignored. A rule defined by custom is still a rule.
  - bane 14y ago
    Nobody said you have to or even should ignore them, just understand that they aren't hard and fast rules. It's incumbent on the language producer to understand the customs that need to be observed to make themselves understood. Not following the custom will seem strange at best and at worst will prevent you from being understood. That's all there is to it. What is opinion is that some people think that there are hard rules to language and it's simply not the case...it's their opinion that there are such rules, even if fact doesn't support their opinion.
    - ColinWright 14y ago
      You seem to have a strange definition of "opinion" ... > What is opinion is that some people think > that there are hard rules to language ... No, it is a fact that some people think that there are hard rules to language. But all this is beside the point. Yes, you are absolutely right that language is fluid, changing, different in different places, and trying to produce "proper rules" and "proper grammars" (by some hard-to-define meaning of the word "proper") is like nailing jello to a wall. You can try, but you won't have much luck. That being said, there are some "rules" which, if you follow them, help you to communicate effectively most of the time. There will be exceptions, and there will be geographical variances, and these are not rules of the language, but rather, they are rules for you to follow while synthesizing constructions. To be honest, I expect you are in violent agreement, and arguing with attitudes you have found elsewhere, but which I do not hold.

zeidrich 14y ago

When I read "A Russian, vegetarian lawyer" I think of some strange Russian practitioner of vegetarian law, or a defendant of vegetarians. On the other hand, the first statement implies the correct idea that he's a lawyer who is Russian and a vegetarian. Context is important. You're talking about a lawyer. Why does the fact that he's a vegetarian need description at all? When I read a statement like that, I guess I compose it right to left. Big red bike would be (Big (Red Bike)) the lawyer would be (Vegetarian (Russian Lawyer)) Where Big modifies the Red Bike, and Vegetarian modifies the Russian Lawyer. The statement in the article with Tolkien and "Great Green Dragon" vs. "Green Great Dragon" would be the same sort of scenario. Are you clarifying the color of the Great Dragon, or are you modifying the size of the Green Dragon. Does "Great Dragon" have some significance past just it's size? You would say "Smiling great white shark", you would never say "Great smiling white shark". Aural perception and reading perception are going to be different too. You can especially add pauses to emphasize relationships. "A Russian ... vegetarian(emphasis) ... lawyer" might clarify that you're speaking about a Russian man who is a vegetarian and a lawyer, and that you're maybe drawing attention to some contrast or contradiction because he is vegetarian.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
But that doesn't explain why (Big Bike) is fine, and so is (Red Bike) but (Red (Big Bike) seems somehow wrong - odd or forced, and would only be used in some special case. The only explanation is that we use internal, unnoticed rules for which order these adjectives occur in.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dthunt 14y ago
> Context is important. In written languages without word breaks, there's a particular problem with figuring out where one word stops and another begins; I would offer that this is a related problem to this adjective ordering problem. In practice, with adequate experience, a party who is not trying to be intentionally confusing will generally avoid constructions he knows to be ambiguous.

vacri 14y ago

Your two 'Russian' examples are different cases because you've thrown a comma into one of them. A lot of what you say is covered in the rules in the first answer, which themselves don't claim to be final. There are also examples given where numbers come after adjectives - 'the first three days' is the normal way of saying that phase, and reordering it to 'the three first days' is usually only when you're waxing poetical. Or "this long weekend will be the greatest three days of your life!" sounds perfectly normal, and is subtly different to "... will be the three greatest days...".

kyrias 14y ago

> I don't think there are rules, only guidelines Every so called grammar "rule" ever written (for natural languages) are written after observing how people spake and write.