Talk:Inventions and Sinfonias

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Adjectives

I made a change in the lead to "thirty, short keyboard compositions" from "thirty short keyboard compositions". Since they're keyboard compositions, "keyboard" is acting as cumulative adjective - it's part of the noun: "compositions". They are definitely short compositions and so "short" is also cumulative adjective. The count then stands alone and is a coordinate adjective and should be separated from the rest of the adjectives. I could be wrong and a grammarian might wish to offer comment. They are, however, not superfluous. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't write, "one, little, two, little, three, little Indians", would you? Then neither should you write "thirty, short keyboard compositions". Not in modern English usage, anyway.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerome Kohl: How are they the same? Do you understand what cumulative and coordinate adjectives are? In your example, each term "one little" is a set of cumulative adjectives. You would, correctly, write "one little, two little, three little Indians". However this is not that same situation. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that opinions differ on many aspects of punctuation, and the trend of the past century or so toward sparser use of commas is opposed by some, I fail to see that the comma you wish to insert here makes the slightest difference to comprehensibility. To answer your specific question: no, I do not see the difference between the two cases. That is why I offered the comparison: "thirty short" is a set of cumulative adjectives, first the number of them, then their collective character. Can you explain to me what I am overlooking?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached that the rules of grammar were correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To be grammatically correct, should the lead read "thirty, short keyboard compositions" or "thirty short keyboard compositions"? 208.81.212.222 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It seems sensible to get input from other editors. I look forward to reading the discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's "thirty short keyboard compositions". This isn't even one of the controversial comma cases. For the comma between "thirty" and "short" to be correct, "thirty" and "short" would have to be coordinate adjectives, which means both would independently modify "keyboard compositions". The way we know they are not coordinate adjectives is that if we place an "and" between them, or reverse their order, it doesn't make sense: "thirty and short keyboard compositions"; "short, thirty keyboard compositions". These are instead cumulative adjectives — "short" modifies "keyboard compositions", but "thirty" does not. "Thirty" modifies "short keyboard compositions". We don't use commas between cumulative adjectives.

A couple of additional points: "keyboard" is also a cumulative adjective. We have three cumulative adjectives here. And a coordinate adjective standing alone is like one hand clapping. There's no such thing.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata). That is what I felt was correct, but was unable to explain so clearly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a grammarian, but to me "thirty short keyboard compositions" looks more correct.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the same (no comma) but like to learn English Grammar: how would "keyboard" ever be a whatever adjective? In cello concerto, cello is not an adjective, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a subtle point of terminology here. In "cello concerto", "cello" is a noun used as an adjective, aka an adjectival noun. It modifies the noun "concerto" by telling what kind of concerto it is - selecting a subset of all concertos. It might be sloppy to say "cello" is an adjective, but it does make it easier to discuss. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's "thirty short keyboard compositions"; commas are used between modifiers when they are of the same general class; when one is numeric and the other descriptive, the comma is dropped. All basic style and usage guides on English cover this in detail. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty short keyboard compositions - The above user is correct, the comma is not needed in this instance. If the sentence used two adjectives of the same category, such as "beautiful" and "short," then a comma would be needed. "Thirty" and "short" are modifiers that belong to different classes, numeric and descriptive. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Giraffedata explained it clearly. I think we can just close this as settled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was settled a long time ago, but if formal closure is required, then I certainly have no objection.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close it please, it's a waste of time continuing to direct volunteers here.

Almonaster (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Almonaster: You've made seven edits, it doesn't appear as though you're even a member of a project and no notices have been placed on your talk page. Thanks for your advice, while well-intentioned, it's misplaced. Anyone can close an RfC if consensus is clear, so next time, be WP:BOLD and do it, however, I wonder how you decided to come to this particular RfC and voice that opinion. Feel free to explain on your talk page and leave me a {{talk back}} notice, or just ignore me. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]