There was an interesting piece in the newspaper today where apparently reporters had called our Attorney General "the General." The article pointed out that in this phrase "the General," though it follows the noun, is the adjective and that they should have called her the "Attorney." Usually in English our adjectives precede nouns, but is there some sort of rule when they don't?
Another noun + adjective construction is court martial (pedantic plural courts martial). These mostly legal terms are all from Anglo-Norman, the variety of French imported by William the Conqueror and his band of invaders. (This is why the adjectives come after the nouns, because in French this is the norm, though there are exceptions.) Though it dropped out of use by the Norman aristocracy and parliament, it continued on in the English courts in some way or another until the 18th century. Over the years it got reanalyzed into a noun + noun compound. Same with the military rank, general, which was originally an adjective modifying officer. The funny thing is that in French adjectives can be used as nouns on their own, whereas in English another term usually needs to be placed alongside: cf. red as in the red ones, but also the Reds. Another adjective that became a noun: cordial. I'm sure there are many more.
Originally posted by zmježd: Another noun + adjective construction is court martial (pedantic plural courts martial)......
Are we Canadians a nation of pedants because we have always had Governors General? You will never hear Canadians say "Governor Generals". But you might hear us commenting on the annual "Governor General's Literary Awards". Those are very popular topics of discussion among our mothers-in-law, but when our babes-in-arms join in it gets too complicated for words!
when our babes-in-arms join in it gets too complicated for words
The tots seem particularly vociferous at the moment. I have just read in another forum that a poster had become "un-scrooged" because his six-month-old granddaughter was insisting on a real Christmas tree with all the glittery trimmings, and now they are commenting on Governors General in Canada. I know the future of a nation is in its youth, but surely they should be toilet-trained first?
New aphorism: You should learn to walk before you run for office.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
In thinking about this thread, I was wondering, do most languages have their adjectives before or after the nouns they modify? I know in Spanish adjectives are after the nouns.
do most languages have their adjectives before or after the nouns they modify?
Good question. There's a whole branch of linguistics called linguistic typology that deals with word order (link). Long story short, different languages place modifiers in different places.
The Germans consistently place adjectives before nouns, as we do... but I wonder how they determine the order of adjectives when constructing giant words like this one:
Pretty much like we do, from left to right, specializing what comes before. Of the 13 morphemes in the word, only three are adjectives Oberammergauer 'of or from Oberammergau', delikat 'delicate', and früh 'early'. You would have difficulty with English compounds. It's a deli-style breakfast cheese (delikatessenfrühstückskäse). If your were going to qualify that, with its place of origin and its additional elements, Oberammergau + alpine herbal + deli-style breakfast cheese. Sort of like Gilroy garlic fries, a New York baseball team, or a caffeine-free diet soda drink.
Obberammergau is a municipality (in German Gemeinde) in the state (Freistaat) of Bavaria famous for its passion plays at Eastertide. I have suspicions about the word itself. If you google it, almost all of the first hundred hits are discussing (in English) its status as a long German word.
There is no instance of "possession" by a group of people holding the title of "Attorney General". In the individual case, an item, say, a fountain pen, would be said to be the "Attorney General's fountain pen". I'd like to see a discussion of the off-putting expression "I would think". With respect, one would have to actually think before writing a reply, so the concept is wholly beyond my comprehension, I would think -- that is, of course, true only in the sense that I have not and would not consider anything beyond my comprehension. Probably an error, but also a philosophy. Oh, boy!
quote:
If attorneys general is the pedantic plural, what is the proper pedantic possessive?
Originally posted by texhenge: There is no instance of "possession" by a group of people holding the title of "Attorney General".
"the former Attorney Generals' decisions"
The English genitive marker is a clitic, so it attaches not to nouns but to noun phrases. In the queen of England's crown, the crown belongs to the queen, not to England. So I would think that it would attach to the end of "Attorney General" and not somewhere in the middle.
quote:
I'd like to see a discussion of the off-putting expression "I would think". With respect, one would have to actually think before writing a reply, so the concept is wholly beyond my comprehension, I would think
It's a hypothetical "would". In a certain case, what would I think? Nothing weird about it at all.
This is simple. "The Attorney General's decision" is one made by an individual Attorney General, while "The Attorney Generals' decision" is one rendered by a group or committee of Attorneys General.
The "I would think..." phrase may be admissible, but it is functionally indistinct and carries no meaning other than the writer's hope to weasel out if a disagreement ensues. If you think or believe something, then say so.
