[projectaon] Re: Last of the 20tcon errata
- From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan.blake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:27:46 -0800
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Benjamin I Krefetz
<krefetz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Jonathan Blake wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (er) 105: eerie green light -> eerie, green light
>>
>> agreed
>>
>>> (er) 251: eerie yellow luminescence -> eerie, yellow luminescence
>>
>> agreed
>
> I disagree. If we put a comma in those places, it means the two adjectives
> are on the same modification level, which would mean that we could just as
> easily say "green, eerie light" and "yellow, eerie luminescence". Those
> combinations sound awkward to me, so I think "eerie" is modifying "green
> light" and "yellow luminescence" rather than modifying "light" and
> "luminescence". (Lynne Truss has a whole discussion about this in _Eats
> Shoots and Leaves_ :) )
I see where you're coming from. It does sound awkward when reversed. I
think that's because we tend to put color adjectives closer to the
noun. Compare "big, red ball" or "talkative, green Martian". It
wouldn't sound right to say "red, big ball" or "green, talkative
Martian". It doesn't have the right cadence even though they are
technically correct.
In my mind, the question is whether the non-color adjective is
functioning to describe the noun or the color. In this instance, does
"eerie" describe "green" or "yellow", or does it describe "light" and
"luminescence"? Maybe this is a failing of my imagination, but I can't
think of a green color that I would describe as eerie on its own, but
I can picture an eerie light.
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
