Adjective Order Rules. What if we don't obey?

[oggbashan]

In English, if there are multiple adjectives, we tend to put them in the recommended order because it sounds right.

The rules are here:

http://www.ef.com/english-resources/english-grammar/ordering-multiple-adjectives/

This is the usual order.

Quantity, Value/opinion, Size, Temperature, Age, Shape, Colour, Origin, Material

Does it matter if we change the order? What impact would it have on a story? It could, for example, be used to show that the character isn't a native English speaker.

A correct example:

The two large brown dogs were chasing a ball.

It sounds wrong like this:

The large brown two dogs were chasing a ball.

(The small brown dogs weren't.)

Or this:

The brown two large dogs were chasing a ball.

(The other colour dogs weren't.)

Can you think of examples when NOT following the rule would be useful?

 

[NicoleZ]

This is the usual order:

Quantity, Value/opinion, Size, Temperature, Age, Shape, Colour, Origin, Material

Can you think of examples when NOT following the rule would be useful?

That is a good question! I'd imagine that changing the order would result in a greater, poetic impact?

Two brown dogs, large for their race, were chasing a ball which because it was red showed perfectly against the lawn, white and cold under its cover of hoar.

 

[oggbashan]

That is a good question! I'd imagine that changing the order would result in a greater, poetic impact?

Two brown dogs, large for their race, were chasing a ball which because it was red showed perfectly against the lawn, white and cold under its cover of hoar.

But your sentence follows the rules.

Changing the order can jar the reader, if that is what you intend.

Breaking the rules:

Young Hot three; feisty petite whores need your money now!

Obeying the rules:

Three feisty petite young hot whores need your money now!

 

[sr71plt]

Breaking the usual pattern will stop the reading flow. Occasionally that's what the author wants to do and sometimes it serves an overall quirky writing style. Most of the time it wouldn't be what the author wanted to have caused to happen.

 

[Handley_Page]

In English, if there are multiple adjectives, we tend to put them in the recommended order because it sounds right.

The rules are here:
http://www.ef.com/english-resources/english-grammar/ordering-multiple-adjectives/

This is the usual order.
Quantity, Value/opinion, Size, Temperature, Age, Shape, Colour, Origin, Material
Does it matter if we change the order? What impact would it have on a story? It could, for example, be used to show that the character isn't a native English speaker.

A correct example:

The two large brown dogs were chasing a ball.

It sounds wrong like this:

The large brown two dogs were chasing a ball.

(The small brown dogs weren't.)

Or this:

The brown two large dogs were chasing a ball.

(The other colour dogs weren't.)

Can you think of examples when NOT following the rule would be useful?

"The two large brown dogs were chasing a ball."

It sounds less wrong like this:

The large brown dogs were chasing a ball.

 

[KindofHere]

...........

 

[SamScribble]

According to Noam Chomsky: Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

I like that idea.

 

[KindofHere]

.............

 

[NicoleZ]

But your sentence follows the rules.

It would seem so because of the disguising foliage added. But I have a better example; Joseph Conrad:

The air was warm, thick, heavy, sluggish.

According to the rules, it should have been "The air was sluggish; thick, heavy, and warm" (opinion/value, size, size, temperature), even if it could be argued that the order used by Conrad is the one in which the sensations would assault and impinge upon someone coming from indoors. It seems that great authors ignore the rules with impunity, in order to impress their word on the reader and as their hallmark.

 

[oggbashan]

It would seem so because of the disguising foliage added. But I have a better example; Joseph Conrad:

The air was warm, thick, heavy, sluggish.

According to the rules, it should have been "The air was sluggish; thick, heavy, and warm" (opinion/value, size, size, temperature), even if it could be argued that the order used by Conrad is the one in which the sensations would assault and impinge upon someone coming from indoors. It seems that great authors ignore the rules with impunity, in order to impress their word on the reader and as their hallmark.

That is a good example of ignoring the rules to create an effect. "Warm" was the most significant attribute.

 

[SimonDoom]

It would seem so because of the disguising foliage added. But I have a better example; Joseph Conrad:

The air was warm, thick, heavy, sluggish.

According to the rules, it should have been "The air was sluggish; thick, heavy, and warm" (opinion/value, size, size, temperature), even if it could be argued that the order used by Conrad is the one in which the sensations would assault and impinge upon someone coming from indoors. It seems that great authors ignore the rules with impunity, in order to impress their word on the reader and as their hallmark.

I think this is right. Another way of looking at it is that the words are arranged from the most general and obvious to most specific and nonobvious. It would be odd to say that air is "sluggish" and then after that say that it is "warm." Sluggish implies warm, but not the other way around.

 

[NicoleZ]

One of the problems with the rules of "grammatics" (which as opposed to the more basic and descriptive grammar is prescriptive) is that it so often ignores semantics. Like you say Simon; "this is right". It feels right because the meaning conveyed, the semantic content, makes sense to us. The first thing we'd notice was the warmth. Then we'd identify it as "thick" and "heavy", before we'd finally notice the "sluggish"-ness, how loath it was to move and the lack of any alleviating breeze.

A sentence can be semantically correct and be perceived as such by readers even if it disobeys the rules of "grammatics". Would that Chomsky had not instantly disenfranchised semantics as the grammatics he came up with is gibberish because of it!

 

[CarlusMagnus]

It seems that great authors ignore the rules with impunity…

The secret is that they don't "ignore the rules with impunity". The know the rules, and they know how and when to break them in order to accomplish what they want to.

 

[TxRad]

The secret is that they don't "ignore the rules with impunity". The know the rules, and they know how and when to break them in order to accomplish what they want to.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[sr71plt]

They also don't do it often enough for much of anyone to notice.

 

[SamScribble]

For many years I had an agent who had previously been a very successful book editor.

Whenever I discussed grammar with Ray, he always came back to his assertion that the only useful grammar was descriptive grammar: what do most writers do most of the time? ‘Have no truck with prescriptive grammars,’ he used to say. ‘In the end, they are invariably just one person’s prejudices.’

 

[NicoleZ]

The secret is that they don't "ignore the rules with impunity". The know the rules, and they know how and when to break them in order to accomplish what they want to.

I am sorry but they do as instead of being taken to task for their grammatical imperfections, they are lauded and held up as shining examples of excellent prose. That is the quintessence of the the word "impunity":

Definition of impunity (Merriam Webster) : exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss <laws were flouted with impunity>

I believe the descriptive word you may have confused with "impunity" possibly might be "intransigently"?

 

[NicoleZ]

For many years I had an agent who had previously been a very successful book editor.

Whenever I discussed grammar with Ray, he always came back to his assertion that the only useful grammar was descriptive grammar: what do most writers do most of the time? ‘Have no truck with prescriptive grammars,’ he used to say. ‘In the end, they are invariably just one person’s prejudices.’

What a lovely man!

 

[NicoleZ]

They also don't do it often enough for much of anyone to notice.

I think you are correct as it seems it is mostly used for the purpose of focusing the reader's attention on certain key elements of the story.

(There are of course exceptions such as this classic the sole purpose of which to the average reader would seem to be to break every possible rule and be written solely for the purpose of bludgeoning the reader into an inferiority complex:

http://uniteddigitalbooks.com/Books/Ulysses Excerpt.pdf )

 

[SimonDoom]

I am sorry but they do as instead of being taken to task for their grammatical imperfections, they are lauded and held up as shining examples of excellent prose. That is the quintessence of the the word "impunity":

Definition of impunity (Merriam Webster) : exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss <laws were flouted with impunity>

I believe the descriptive word you may have confused with "impunity" possibly might be "intransigently"?

I think CM's focus here was on the word "ignore." I agree with you that great authors sometimes break rules, and do so appropriately, but I don't think they ignore them. They know them and choose to break them anyway, and usually they are right to do so.

There's that line by Captain Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean about the Pirate's Code -- they're more like guidelines than actual rules. That dictum applies, more or less, here.

 

[TxRad]

I think CM's focus here was on the word "ignore." I agree with you that great authors sometimes break rules, and do so appropriately, but I don't think they ignore them. They know them and choose to break them anyway, and usually they are right to do so.

There's that line by Captain Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean about the Pirate's Code -- they're more like guidelines than actual rules. That dictum applies, more or less, here.

You pretty much have it right. Grammar and all the rules apply pretty much to non fiction. For fiction, they are more or less guidelines.

But don't try and tell that to a grammar Nazi. Them rules are all that matter. They don't believe there is more than one way to write.

 

[KindofHere]

.............

 

[CarlusMagnus]

For fiction, [grammar's rules] are more or less guidelines.

My own working principle is this:

If a breach calls the reader's attention to itself, it's bad writing; if it calls the reader's attention to the story, it's good writing. If it's in the middle, it's mediocre writing.

 

[TxRad]

My own working principle is this:

If a breach calls the reader's attention to itself, it's bad writing; if it calls the reader's attention to the story, it's good writing. If it's in the middle, it's mediocre writing.

When you write like people talk, all grammar rules go out the window.

 

[Tw0Cr0ws]

Like this, correct grammar word order is. Hmmmmmm.