Print

Print


Yes, your right. “shitty little white dog” sounds better.

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Eyal Minsky-Fenick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Indeed. But ‘shitty’ isn't really one of them. It's a slightly vulgar but
> otherwise ordinary adjective of opinion (so actually should go before other
> adjectives).
> 
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:41 PM, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Addressing only the very last point, re "throw away" swear words: I think
>> such words are used for their emotional punch rather than anything
>> denotive. As such, they may bear the most important information of all, and
>> thus not be 'throw-away' at all.
>> Because of their ability to appear in various contexts and positions in
>> sentences, I agree that they aren't normal adjectives.
>> 
>> stevo
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Stewart Fraser <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ah you are asking if non-restrictive adjectives exist. I thought you were
>>> assuming their existence. I think all the posters after you (the
>> original)
>>> assumed they exist … OK, I understand.
>>> 
>>> I am pretty sure they don’t exist … in any language that I know of
>> anyway.
>>> 
>>> Lets give an example (to keep us grounded in reality instead of flights
>> of
>>> fancy which some latinate term might send us) …
>>> 
>>> Say I was telling an amusing story about a/the “big black dog” and a/the
>>> “small white dog”. Half way through the tale I wouldn’t suddenly give the
>>> information that the big dog was angry by mentioning “big black angry
>> dog”.
>>> I would posit that the reason for this is … if something is worth saying
>> it
>>> is worth saying properly. To slip in “angry” does not give enough
>> “phonetic
>>> weight” (my term). A seperate clause or a relative clause such as “the
>>> black dog which was angry” or “the black dog which was very angry by the
>>> way” gives sufficient weight to this extra bit of information you are
>>> adding.
>>> 
>>> Relative clauses and adjectives have similar rolls is sentences. But
>>> usuage is not identical. For example often the easiest (or only) way to
>>> refer to an individual on the very edge of your social circle (i.e.
>>> knowledge) is to use a relative clause whose main concept is a verb (as
>>> opposed to copula + adjective) … i.e. “that guy who kicked my dog”
>>> 
>>> Now I am going to contradict myself … but I think this is a very minor
>>> usage and doesn’t nullify my main argument. Sometime during the tail I
>>> could suddenly refer to the “small shitty white dog”. However “shitty” is
>>> not really giving more information about the dog … rather it is showing
>>> that I disapprove of the dog or something that the dog done. A swear word
>>> is a bit “throw away” word … not on the same level as a normal adjective.
>>> 
>>> … Stewart
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 28 February 2018 at 16:28, Stewart Fraser <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> I have never heard of a restrictive adjective or a non-restrictive
>>> adjective. Does English have this dichotomy ? Any examples.
>>>> 
>>>> No. At least, not in the same sense as those terms apply to relative
>>>> clauses (per And, apparently there is another usage of the same terms
>>>> for adjectives). That's why I was asking. Quoth myself:
>>>> 
>>>>>> In contrast, there is no way to distinguish restrictive vs.
>>>>>> non-restrictive adjectives (apart from relativizing a predicate
>>>>>> adjective clause) in English.
>>>> 
>>>> -l.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Eyal Joseph Minsky-Fenick
> [log in to unmask] (personal)
> [log in to unmask] (school)
> 203-393-1394 (home)
> 203-988-2234 (cell)
> 9 Birch Rd., Woodbridge, CT 06525