4 ms·

How about in the case of: 1. "A Chinese vegetarian lawyer" 2. "A Vegetarian Chinese lawyer" According to the referenced paper[1], #1 is considered awkward,

by sev 13y ago

How about in the case of: 1. "A Chinese vegetarian lawyer" 2. "A Vegetarian Chinese lawyer" According to the referenced paper[1], #1 is considered awkward, but #1 follows your ordering logic, assuming that there are more Chinese than Vegetarians. [1] http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1473.pdf http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1473.pdf

mtinkerhess 13y ago
Those examples are hard for me to reason about. In my limited experience with lawyers, my prior for vegetarian is probably higher than for Chinese, but my sample size is too low to be statistically significant. I also find either ordering awkward for categorizing a professional by their county of origin and their dietary restrictions :)
almost 13y ago
#1 Would suggest to me a lawyer who is Chinese and specialises in vegetarians someone while #2 would suggest a layer who is Chinese (or who deals in Chinese laws) and is a vegetarian. Maybe just me?
- buss 13y ago
  Yes, that is also how I interpreted the two phrases.
- proofofconcept 13y ago
  There needs to be a comma in between 'Vegetarian' and 'Chinese' in both phrases to clarify that whichever is the former modifies 'lawyer' as opposed to the latter.
  - elbear 13y ago
    No, because the two adjectives aren't from the same category, are they? That would be the only reason why you would use a comma.
  - vorg 13y ago
    A hyphen also helps... A Chinese vegetarian lawyer= a lawyer, who is both ethnic Chinese and vegetarian, where the set of vegetarian lawyers is more generally recognized than the set of Chinese lawyers A Chinese vegetarian-lawyer= ethnic Chinese who practises law of vegetarian issues ("vegetarian" is a compound word, i.e. spoken quicker, at higher pitch, and with less gap before the following word) A Chinese, vegetarian, lawyer= an ethnic Chinese who just happens to also be a vegetarian, ("vegetarian" is a non-restrictive phrase, i.e. spoken at lower pitch, with a longer gap both before and after)
- bane 13y ago
  Even better, #2 is unclear if the person practices Chinese law or is Ethnically Chinese.

by sev 13y ago

mtinkerhess 13y ago

Those examples are hard for me to reason about. In my limited experience with lawyers, my prior for vegetarian is probably higher than for Chinese, but my sample size is too low to be statistically significant. I also find either ordering awkward for categorizing a professional by their county of origin and their dietary restrictions :)

almost 13y ago

#1 Would suggest to me a lawyer who is Chinese and specialises in vegetarians someone while #2 would suggest a layer who is Chinese (or who deals in Chinese laws) and is a vegetarian. Maybe just me?

buss 13y ago
Yes, that is also how I interpreted the two phrases.
proofofconcept 13y ago
There needs to be a comma in between 'Vegetarian' and 'Chinese' in both phrases to clarify that whichever is the former modifies 'lawyer' as opposed to the latter.
- elbear 13y ago
  No, because the two adjectives aren't from the same category, are they? That would be the only reason why you would use a comma.
- vorg 13y ago
  A hyphen also helps... A Chinese vegetarian lawyer= a lawyer, who is both ethnic Chinese and vegetarian, where the set of vegetarian lawyers is more generally recognized than the set of Chinese lawyers A Chinese vegetarian-lawyer= ethnic Chinese who practises law of vegetarian issues ("vegetarian" is a compound word, i.e. spoken quicker, at higher pitch, and with less gap before the following word) A Chinese, vegetarian, lawyer= an ethnic Chinese who just happens to also be a vegetarian, ("vegetarian" is a non-restrictive phrase, i.e. spoken at lower pitch, with a longer gap both before and after)
bane 13y ago
Even better, #2 is unclear if the person practices Chinese law or is Ethnically Chinese.