Seriously?

[Kantarii]

Personally, I use adjectives as sparingly as possible - two at the most and only the relevant ones, but that is just meKant

 

[Kojak01]

Personally, I use adjectives as sparingly as possible - two at the most and only the relevant ones, but that is just meKant

I mentioned in post #17 that it wasn't about style. You have to put two adjectives in an order as well... It was just that I stumbled over the quote I mentioned and was curious whether this was correct.

 

[oggbashan]

I mentioned in post #17 that it wasn't about style. You have to put two adjectives in an order as well... It was just that I stumbled over the quote I mentioned and was curious whether this was correct.

Like many grammar 'rules' it is correct most of the time and follows native speakers' usage. It is a useful summary for those learning English as a second language. If they use that order it will sound right almost every time.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

What really amazes me lately is the UK's capacity to speak multiple languages fluidly. Maybe nothing new to you guys, but it's not until very recently I've taken note of that. Though it does make sense once I gave it some thought, I'd still like to know if there's a method of sorts that can be applied to Americans?

 

[Captainnumnuts]

I just stumbled over the following statement:

"Adjectives in English absolutely have to be in this order: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest you’ll sound like a maniac. It’s an odd thing that every English speaker uses that list, but almost none of us could write it out."
*) Quoted from Mark Forsyth, The Elements of Eloquence

How am I as a non-native supposed to ingrain this to make sure I don't sound like a maniac?

Are there other such rules I should know about?

(And then they have the balls to go around and say that German is difficult to learn... )

Wonderful find! Thanks for the thread.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Don't confuse 'academic' grammar with the actual syntax of a language. Our formal grammars derive from the Latin grammar of the old Romans. It was based on the grammar that the Greeks developed to organize and explain their own language. It didn't work too poorly for Latin, a cognate of Greek, but with the shift to the vernaculars at the end of the Middle Ages, academics began describing those languages on the Latin model; when you get away from the 'Romance' languages, it gets a bit artificial. The excess is, perhaps, best seen in T. G. H. Strehlow's grammar of the native Australian language, Pitjenjara, which is modeled directly on a Latin grammar book. Chapter six in the Latin grammar was "the verb 'to be,'" so that was chapter six of his Pitjenjara grammar. It had but a single sentence "there is no verb 'to be' in Pitjenjara."

Ever since Jakobsen and de Saussure, linguists have described languages on the basis of how they are spoken, not on what they would be if they were Latin. That's where the so -called unwritten 'rules' come from. And so, yes, in that reordered list, it is only the first one that 'feels' right to a native speaker of English.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Like many grammar 'rules' it is correct most of the time and follows native speakers' usage. It is a useful summary for those learning English as a second language. If they use that order it will sound right almost every time.

I couldn't help but notice oggbashan, but you post w/such clarity it's unbelievably fantastic. And consistently, I might add. I lack that ability. I tend to 'break the rules' so to speak. It's part of my makeup or personality. Whether my methods of writing or speaking are a flaw or bonus, I'm not so sure lately.

Though I do struggle w/grammar 'rules' and I will continue to do so, I'm not sure if I want to change it. Hopefully, I make sense.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Don't confuse 'academic' grammar with the actual syntax of a language. Our formal grammars derive from the Latin grammar of the old Romans. It was based on the grammar that the Greeks developed to organize and explain their own language. It didn't work too poorly for Latin, a cognate of Greek, but with the shift to the vernaculars at the end of the Middle Ages, academics began describing those languages on the Latin model; when you get away from the 'Romance' languages, it gets a bit artificial. The excess is, perhaps, best seen in T. G. H. Strehlow's grammar of the native Australian language, Pitjenjara, which is modeled directly on a Latin grammar book. Chapter six in the Latin grammar was "the verb 'to be,'" so that was chapter six of his Pitjenjara grammar. It had but a single sentence "there is no verb 'to be' in Pitjenjara."

Ever since Jakobsen and de Saussure, linguists have described languages on the basis of how they are spoken, not on what they would be if they were Latin. That's where the so -called unwritten 'rules' come from. And so, yes, in that reordered list, it is only the first one that 'feels' right to a native speaker of English.

Good point.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Churchill once defined a gentleman as somebody who is only rude when he intends to be. He didn't say 'never', he said only by intention.

Similarly, I think this rule is a guide. You won't be wrong if you follow it (and it comes pretty naturally to one raised in English), but it is not an imperative as Forsyth makes it out to be. Writers often veer away from the norm, the traditional, the standard. How boring reading would be if no writer ever strayed from the marked path.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

What really amazes me lately is the UK's capacity to speak multiple languages fluidly. Maybe nothing new to you guys, but it's not until very recently I've taken note of that. Though it does make since once I gave it some thought, I'd still like to know if there's a method of sorts that can be applied to Americans?

Learning more than one language fluently seems to be more of a 'politico-normative' problem than an issue of teaching techniques. Many Americans tend to consider other languages as 'foreign,' and largely unnatural. Here in Québec, people shift easily between French and English, even within the same conversation, and many of my students do it in three or more languages. In Europe, three seems to be the minimum, and in the Papua-New Guinea highlands, every respectable adult speaks at least five.

There are many Americans who are fluent in more than one language, but they're mostly of minority linguistic groups. The key, I think, is to recognize that one's mother tongue is just one of many, and not 'the greatest' or 'the best' of them all. When I was in high school in Brooklyn, we studied English, of course, as well as Latin and French. In my sophmore year, most of the class (we were a small school) decided that wasn't enough in this diverse world of ours, and we started taking classes in other languages. Many went to Spanish, a natural and practical choice given our Spanish-speaking (American) neighbors from Puerto Rico; I studied Irish for a year, and others turned to Norwegian, Russian, Italian, and more. It can be done.

 

[Kojak01]

What really amazes me lately is the UK's capacity to speak multiple languages fluidly. Maybe nothing new to you guys, but it's not until very recently I've taken note of that. Though it does make since once I gave it some thought, I'd still like to know if there's a method of sorts that can be applied to Americans?

I suppose this has a lot to do with necessity. I remember a joke from the time I spent learning English in Cambridge: What's the most spoken language in the world? Bad English!

All over the world, people understand English. So, why learn their language? So need is probably the most important driver to learn a language.
In my youth, I had to take a one-year course in Latin. I had no use or need for that language and therefore only just passed the course.
With English or French it was different. Both languages are important in Switzerland and if you want to succeed in the business world you have to speak them. So there was a need for the language and I learned them.

Another thing that certainly helps when you're trying to learn a language is being interested in the corresponding culture and that may be something where Americans are often lacking. If you think you're superior to another nationality then why should you learn their language?
***This is a generalisation and does not automatically apply to individuals. No offence intended!***

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Learning more than one language fluently seems to be more of a 'politico-normative' problem than an issue of teaching techniques. Many Americans tend to consider other languages as 'foreign,' and largely unnatural. Here in Québec, people shift easily between French and English, even within the same conversation, and many of my students do it in three or more languages. In Europe, three seems to be the minimum, and in the Papua-New Guinea highlands, every respectable adult speaks at least five.

There are many Americans who are fluent in more than one language, but they're mostly of minority linguistic groups. The key, I think, is to recognize that one's mother tongue is just one of many, and not 'the greatest' or 'the best' of them all. When I was in high school in Brooklyn, we studied English, of course, as well as Latin and French. In my sophmore year, most of the class (we were a small school) decided that wasn't enough in this diverse world of ours, and we started taking classes in other languages. Many went to Spanish, a natural and practical choice given our Spanish-speaking (American) neighbors from Puerto Rico; I studied Irish for a year, and others turned to Norwegian, Russian, Italian, and more. It can be done.

I suppose this has a lot to do with necessity. I remember a joke from the time I spent learning English in Cambridge: What's the most spoken language in the world? Bad English!

All over the world, people understand English. So, why learn their language? So need is probably the most important driver to learn a language.
In my youth, I had to take a one-year course in Latin. I had no use or need for that language and therefore only just passed the course.
With English or French it was different. Both languages are important in Switzerland and if you want to succeed in the business world you have to speak them. So there was a need for the language and I learned them.

Another thing that certainly helps when you're trying to learn a language is being interested in the corresponding culture and that may be something where Americans are often lacking. If you think you're superior to another nationality then why should you learn their language?
***This is a generalisation and does not automatically apply to individuals. No offence intended!***

Ya'll are picking on my usage of the word 'since' before I corrected it, aren't you?

No offense taken whatsoever. I may be one loyal SOB when it comes to my country, but I'm not blind to it's faults. Having said that, this will probably bug me the rest of the day. But little things like this are what I really get into.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

It weird. I don't strictly follow this list order (I have seen it before), but sometimes I inadvertently find myself rearranging my word order to sound more proper and it will start to line up with this.

 

[Hypoxia]

What's the most spoken language in the world? Bad English!

I read a linguist's prediction some time back that by year 2050 some 80% of Earth's population will think they speak Anglish, and 80% of those won't be able to understand each other.

 

[thespiceoflife]

A) Her big round blue eyes sparkled with joy.
B) Her big blue round eyes sparkled with joy.
C) Her round big blue eyes sparkled with joy.
D) Her round blue big eyes sparkled with joy.
E) Her blue big round eyes sparkled with joy.
F) Her blue round big eyes sparkled with joy.

To me, there is no difference between these sentences. It could be that D and F sound a bit clumsy but maybe I just think that because I know they should...

only A sounds right,
B is almost acceptable

 

[Gentleman_G]

What really amazes me lately is the UK's capacity to speak multiple languages fluidly. Maybe nothing new to you guys, but it's not until very recently I've taken note of that.

You obviously haven't been to The Netherlands yet Being a country only able to thrive by trading with other countries (UK, Germany, France are the most common, but they were also the first to trade exclusively with Japan, for instance), they have an ingrained drive to speak more languages. We get it all taught in school too. Though being fluent does not mean people can also understand you if your pronunciation is lousy

Of course I'm the exception, being only fluent in Dutch and English. Though I can understand Japanese a bit better than German due to my exposure to it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Etymology of rule: "From Middle English rule, borrowed from Old French riule, reule, itself an early semi-learned borrowing from Latin regula (“straight stick, bar, ruler, pattern”), from regere (“to keep straight, direct, govern, rule”); see regent."

I am tempted to blather about varieties of rules, rulers, and rulings, all of which are about imposing order, but I'll limit myself to a narrow consideration. Yes, I'll skip this page. Y'all may sigh with relief now.

Rules and regulations. Rules of order. Swim pool rules. Game and gaming rules. The rule of law. Monastic rules. These are all pretty much mandatory. Follow the rule or be punished.

Rules of thumb. These are voluntary guidelines for effective living. (The original was about wife-beating.) Carpenter's rule: Measure twice, cut once. Typesetter's rule: "Set up type as long as you can hold your breath without turning blue in the face, then put in a comma. When you gape, put in a semicolon, and when you want to sneeze, that's the time to make a paragraph." Et fucking cetera.

The Adjectives Order rule is a rule of thumb, not a rule of law. The only punishments for disobeying are laughter, contempt, disregard, and/or incomprehension. Guilty!

 

[tomlitilia]

I'm non-native, and even though I haven't seen the rule, I must say I can't think of an example where I wouldn't use this ordering. So seems like a good go-to rule. As always, rules are meant to be broken, but only intentionally to serve purpose.

 

[rescatooor]

This reminds me of a rule we had in school. It was about sentence structure in general:

Subject - Predicative - Object - Method - Place - Time

E.g. Anne ate the apple slowly in the cafeteria at lunch time.

I believe most people don't really have use for such rule but it might be useful if you are studying English as a foreign language. I personally believe the last three can in some cases be switched around for emphasis but maybe this is the way you should do it if you want an ordinary structure.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

It weird. I don't strictly follow this list order (I have seen it before), but sometimes I inadvertently find myself rearranging my word order to sound more proper and it will start to line up with this.

I do something similar. When I was a kid, my deep southern accent, bordering on Cajun, was hard for folks to understand outside of the deep south (USA). I was ridiculed often, though most times it was comical to me as well. When I joined the USN, they put me through speech classes to speak english w/universal clarity. My writing, however, was not impeded in any way.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Also for me (far from perfect in English), it makes sense to use a certain order.

Dat wood seem cowect. <<<<An example of my English before entry into the world of schooling.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Etymology of rule: "From Middle English rule, borrowed from Old French riule, reule, itself an early semi-learned borrowing from Latin regula (“straight stick, bar, ruler, pattern”), from regere (“to keep straight, direct, govern, rule”); see regent."

I am tempted to blather about varieties of rules, rulers, and rulings, all of which are about imposing order, but I'll limit myself to a narrow consideration. Yes, I'll skip this page. Y'all may sigh with relief now.

Rules and regulations. Rules of order. Swim pool rules. Game and gaming rules. The rule of law. Monastic rules. These are all pretty much mandatory. Follow the rule or be punished.

Rules of thumb. These are voluntary guidelines for effective living. (The original was about wife-beating.) Carpenter's rule: Measure twice, cut once. Typesetter's rule: "Set up type as long as you can hold your breath without turning blue in the face, then put in a comma. When you gape, put in a semicolon, and when you want to sneeze, that's the time to make a paragraph." Et fucking cetera.

The Adjectives Order rule is a rule of thumb, not a rule of law. The only punishments for disobeying are laughter, contempt, disregard, and/or incomprehension. Guilty!

Ahhhhh. That makes sense. I understand the Latin origins, as I believe Latin to be the forerunner of all English speaking countries. Having considerable experience w/carpentry - it's especially intriguing to my mindset. Being a southerner (thus, the root of my story telling flair) who's ancestry and citizenship is deeply rooted in a combination of caucasian and native American Indian - there's also a considerable influence from the French of days gone past. Carpentry was also the basis for math before learning math in a more formal environment. Interesting thing to ponder.

I'm non-native, and even though I haven't seen the rule, I must say I can't think of an example where I wouldn't use this ordering. So seems like a good go-to rule. As always, rules are meant to be broken, but only intentionally to serve purpose.

You'd think that w/only 26 letters in the alphabet, English wouldn't be so difficult.

I speak Spanish often as a 2nd language and in matters of translation.
There's many dialects of Spanish - my version has been learned by friendships and working alongside Hispanics. Primarily Argentina w/a Puerto Rican influence. Though I've never studied it, I'm told often I speak it as if it's my native tongue. More often than not, some Spanish speaking persons are amazed I'm such a gringo/Yankee.

 

[Kojak01]

Ahhhhh. That makes sense. I understand the Latin origins, as I believe Latin to be the forerunner of all English speaking countries.

I think you have some backwards here. There are three major language groups in Europe:
1. the Romance or Latin languages (Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese),
2. the Germanic languages (German, the scandinavian languages [ex Finnish], and English)
3. the Slavic languages (most Eastern European languages)

Then there are several smaller groups: Celtic, Hellenic, Baltic, ...

These groups can be easily recognised by comparing some important words.

English: to come (not the sexual one )
German: kommen
Swedish: att komma
Norwegian: å komme

Latin: venire
French: venir
Italian: venire
Spanish: venir

I'm not going into the eastern languages now (due to using a different alphabet and google translate who doesn't give me the transcription ) but you'd recognise a similar stem through the various languages.

Of course, there are lots of words and expressions that have been exchanged between these language groups in all directions.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

I think you have some backwards here. There are three major language groups in Europe:
1. the Romance or Latin languages (Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese),
2. the Germanic languages (German, the scandinavian languages [ex Finnish], and English)
3. the Slavic languages (most Eastern European languages)

Then there are several smaller groups: Celtic, Hellenic, Baltic, ...

These groups can be easily recognised by comparing some important words.

English: to come (not the sexual one )
German: kommen
Swedish: att komma
Norwegian: å komme

Latin: venire
French: venir
Italian: venire
Spanish: venir

I'm not going into the eastern languages now (due to using a different alphabet and google translate who doesn't give me the transcription ) but you'd recognise a similar stem through the various languages.

Of course, there are lots of words and expressions that have been exchanged between these language groups in all directions.

I wouldn't know about that. I'm no expert on it. And 'experts' ain't all that.

I do have a processing problem within my head as it pertains to expressing such thoughts verbally. Thanks for the info.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Ahhhhh. That makes sense. I understand the Latin origins, as I believe Latin to be the forerunner of all English speaking countries.

As Kojak01 says, English is officially a Germanic language, but it picked up a lot of Latin vocabulary after the Norman invasion in the 11th century.

There's an interesting list here of cases where both Germanic and Latinate words have stayed in the language - for instance "brotherly" is Germanic but "fraternal" is Latinate.

As a generalisation, the Latinate words have posher/more formal connotations than Germanic, presumably because they came from the ruling class. So a doctor or government official might say "infant" where a working-class speaker would more likely say "baby".