Re: more on adjectives

Brad Coon wrote:

> Combining all of these allows only one unmarked order for me,
> He is a stupid, old, black and white hunting dog.
I agree, though I'm not native and thus not quite representative.  For
me, an old dog is more concrete and objective a concept than a stupid
dog, which seems to be more of an opinion.

In general, inherentness of a property is a very reliable criterion.  It
might not be readily comparable, as in the stupid/old question.

I figured out another way of determining the "right" order of two
adjectives...  I can't say anything about its validity, but it seems
somewhat intuitive.

Try first removing one adjective, then the other.  Which omission makes
the expression less defined?  Which adjective leaves a larger
informational hole when removed?  That's the one that should be nearer
to the noun (in both head-first and head-last languages).

Imagine a stupid dog.  Well, that could be just about any dog.  It
doesn't really tell you much.  It's also rather subjective, some people
consider dogs in general to be stupid.  You probably wouldn't recognize
a stupid dog either, unless he were doing something exceptionally stupid
while you saw him.

Now imagine an old dog... now that's a more concrete image.  Shaggy
greyish fur, white whiskers, a propensity to lie around on warm places
looking around with a tired eye, a reluctance to stand up and a laborous gait...

Now imagine a stupid old dog.  What does it look like?  Basically, like
an old dog.  Remove the "stupid" and the image won't change much.  The
age even implies a bit of a slow mind.  Remove the "old" and you're
standing in the dark.

Therefore, it should be a stupid old dog.


-- Christian Thalmann