Talk:Postpositive adjective

Lots of questionable examples

Verizon Wireless, Virgin Mobile: These seem more like elliptical phrases to me, where "wireless" and "mobile" modify an implied noun phrase like "communication" or "phone service".

whiskey sour: In this case "sour" is a noun modified by another noun. You can tell because the plural is "whiskey sours", not *"whiskies sour", and also because a whiskey sour is not a type of whiskey.

regnal numbers, e.g. Henry the Eighth: I interpret this as an appositive. "The eighth" can't be an adjectival phrase because it starts with a determiner.

buildings ablaze, holidays abroad, boats adrift, men asleep, men awake: None of these are grammatical phrases on their own. In context, they would appear in a sentence like "We found two boats adrift", where "adrift" modifies "found", not "boats". I'm less sure about "food aplenty", but it seems fishy because it looks very odd as the subject of the sentence, e.g. *"Food aplenty is the main export of Ukraine."

fun and games à gogo: Here, "à gogo" is a prepositional phrase that happens to be in French.

—John W (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passer-by

Why is passer-by included in the list? Palpalpalpal (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective group placement

It seems (I’m not an english-speaker so I’m not sure!) that some kind of adjective groups such as "too polite to be honest" or "displayed in the first screen" are always put after the noun, while some others, like "very ugly" or "rather brilliant" are always put in front of it. Is there a definite rule about this? JX Bardant (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases you mentioned there are some words that have been omitted as "the explanation (that is/was) too polite to be honest" or "please, watch the image (that is) displayed in the first screen". Moreover, there are such expression as "mission impossible", "destination unknown", "the counrty so beautiful" or some others the like. I am not a native English-speaker either. --Rantatero (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly adjectives

passer-by. As observed quickly above, "by" is an adverb associated with the verb "pass". However it does follow the general rule for plurals, viz. passer(s)-by.
pro tempore. That's a preposition with an object (ablative case). It just happens to be in Latin.

But I don't personally think a couple of such cases are much cause for concern.

Grammatical purists are not the sort of people who need help from a list of this type.

Varlaam (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some of these examples, then saw this. There's no "strictly" about it, I think; "by" is simply not an adjective. If this article were about "nominal lexical items with modifiers following the head", it would belong, but it's not, so it doesn't. I think the mention on English_plural#Plurals_of_compound_nouns suffices. 4pq1injbok (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal. If we're going to include constructions that are not adjectives, this article should not be called post-positive adjective. "Purism" doesn't even enter into it; it's a question of precision and correctness. Isn't it reasonable to expect that an encyclopedia be precise and correct? If you really want non-adjectives in the list, you should find something else to call it. Saying "this is a list of post-positive adjectives" and then including things that aren't post-positive adjectives is essentially lying. I also see that 4pq1injbok and I aren't the only ones who hold this opinion, so I think it's time to stop adding the non-adjectival examples back in. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided a decent compromise should be listing them separately. I admit I am unclear about where mother-in-law and mother-to-be belong -- "in-law" does not exist as an independent adjective, but I can see the logic... - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that we delete the examples which aren't English - Astraea Redux is Latin, agent provocateur is French. They may be expressions with which an English reader is familiar, but they're still not English. Tevildo (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant Marine

I've heard conflicting cases about the plural of "merchant marine". One side says that "marine" is a postpositive adjective like "attorney general", making the plural "merchants marine". The other says that it pluralizes like "brigadier general", with "marine" as the noun, hence "merchant marines". Does anyone know, or have a strong feeling which way it should go? My take is that the former is correct, but I don't know an authoritative source with a convincing explanation. 199.204.8.21 (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marine is undoubtedly the noun - it's used as a pretty weird synonym for 'navy', which is why Commonwealth English uses the term 'merchant navy'. That means a plural use looks like "The American and Swiss merchant marines are quite different in size".

MacBook Pro

Would one have two MacBooks Pro? Is there a whole class of computer industry product names like this? Would one have two SoundBlasters Xtreme, two HTCs Droids Incredible? Two Photoshops CS5? The majority of the soi-disant experts at the English StackExchange disagree:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/7276/plural-of-ipod-touch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.61 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so rare in English?

I don't think it's right to say they are rare in English. Apparently they're standard English grammar after a pronoun, as in "somthing useful", "those responsible", and common after superlative phrases like "the shortest route possible". Have a look here for further explanation. Tayste (edits) 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bee Gees" (not actually "Brothers Gibb"): removed example

I've removed the "Brothers Gibb" example because that alleged origin of the "Bee Gees" name is a popular misconception (and besides, if that aetiological myth were true, wouldn't the name be "Bees Gee"?). See the second paragraph of the "History" section of the main Bee Gees article, complete with source (footnote currently numbered 8: Dolgins, Adam: Rock Names: From Abba to ZZ Top, 3rd ed., p.24. Citadel Press, 1998). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.52.227 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sight unseen"

Is this an example? - Mohanchous (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a borderline case. It's a participial phrase, not unlike the Latin ablative absolute. Most of the entries on this page are fixed phrases, whereas this is a productive grammatical structure -- in other words, it can be used with almost any noun and participle. "The ship passed, sight unseen" and "the ship passed, its sails unfurled" are using essentially the same grammatical structure, but the latter doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. However, the former does seem a bit unusual in that it doesn't require a possessive (we have to say "its sails unfurled", but not "its sight unseen"), so it is arguably a fixed phrase regardless. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every star visible

Isn't the "star visible" example just another example of an invisible subordinate clause? You can't say "This is a star visible". It has to be followed by something, like "This is a star visible to me". The sentence on the page is actually "Every star [that is] visible is named after a famous astronomer". --AndreRD (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can so say "This is a star visible." as in "This is a star [that is] visible [from our location]." In this case, it just wouldn't be the titular post-positive adjectival usage of the word "visible", but no one said it had to be. A clause like '[that is]' isn't the only thing that is optional in this example, as the prepositional phrase is also optional. Just like adjectives, prepositional phrases exist to modify other parts of speech, in this case the adjective "visible", but are not required as a syntactical necessity. Leaving these things out might make it sound odd, but oddity does not imply invalidity. :| 71.236.136.184 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Examples, Bad Examples

I suggest the following as other possible good examples.

In designation/versioning

Mark (version number, e.g. XII)
Version (version number, e.g. 2.0)
(Type, e.g. M) (number, e.g. 16) as in the M16 rifle

In fluid mechanics

Mach (number, e.g. 5, or even 5)

In ordinal numbering

Number 1
Number 2
Or any numbering in general

In poetry

Body Electric

In journalism [1] NBC's "The Body Odd" (health related news site whose name is probably styled after other similar terms)

In emergency situations

Code red
Code blue
Presumably others

In clandestine operations

Code word, or perhaps more specifically...
Code name nomenclature, including things like 'Operation (operation name, e.g. Iraqi Freedom)' and Project (project name, e.g. Runway)

In military rank

In dangerous vixens

Femme fatale (obviously a loan term from a language where post-modifiers are more common)

In generational labeling

In body language

Arms akimbo
Walking (number) abreast

In desserts

In class distinction

Have Nots

In the Apostle's Creed

life everlasting

Might I also suggest that:

"best room available", "best choice possible", "worst choice imaginable", "food aplenty", "things possible and impossible", "things forgotten", "words unspoken", "dreams undreamt"

are bad examples as they are really just:

"best room [that is] available", "best choice [that is] possible", "worst choice [that is] imaginable", "food [that is] aplenty", "things [that are] possible and impossible", "things [that are] forgotten", "words [that are] unspoken", "dreams [that are] undreamt"

Furthermore, I don't think that Brigadier General, Major General, or Lieutenant General fit the description, as the words Brigadier, Major, and Lieutenant in these cases are actually the adjectives describing what kinds of Generals they are. (Oddly enough, the Wiktionary entry for Lieutenant General does (currently) state that 'Lieutenants General' is an acceptable alternative of the plural form 'Lieutenant Generals'. However, I have requested, on both the main page and the alternative, some additional evidence of proof of this as an acceptable alternative, as I don't believe it is anything more than an overextension of the plural form of 'Attorney General' and the like. The difference is that in the former, the noun is General, whereas in the latter, the noun is Attorney.)

71.236.136.184 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you here about the military ranks that include the term "general" as the last word; I was just as suspicious as you. I also love a lot of these additional examples you provide, and I think many should be added to the page. However, I'm not sure I agree with your overall criticism of the "bad examples." In a sentence like "They ate food aplenty," the word "aplenty" is not in a separate clause from the noun ("food") that it modifies. And the word "aplenty" cannot even exist in a phrase separated from the noun it modifies ("You were asking about the food; well, I can tell you that it's aplenty" doesn't make sense, for example). Obviously, this is grammatically feasible with a phrase like "things forgotten," but again, "things" and "forgotten" are in the same clause, so "forgotten" is functioning post-positively. Wolfdog (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts payable / receivable?

Are these also examples? 24.52.224.70 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Un bon vin blanc

Maybe it could be mentioned in the first section that prepositive and postpositive adjectives may occur in the same expression, such as:

un bon vin blanc, "a good white wine"

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives, ellipses and adverbs

This is a highly confusing article with many bad or even wrong examples and explanations. The author(s) of the article seemingly have little knowledge of grammar, syntax and morphology.

Virtually all examples which include a past participle as a postpositive adjective are actually ellipses. Another user has already pointed that out.
Really bad examples like Apocalypse Now confuse adjectives with adverbs!
Examples like The Life Aquatic are bad as the apparent adjective is in fact an adverb without the respective ending (which becomes unnecessary because of the absence of adjectives). One could also say The life aquatically or The life in an aquatic manner without changing the original meaning, that's why.
The example in the introduction those anxious is very poor because "those" is actually used as an adjective to a substantivated "anxious" (i.e. the anxious ones). If "those" was a noun why can't I say things like "the new those", "the old those", "the big those" asf.?

--StonerLemonBlues (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alternative analysis

Couldn't "A dog so fast it could win at the track" mean "A dog THAT RAN so fast..." (making 'fast' an adverb)? Stjohn1970 (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

treasure trove

While “treasure trove” is indeed derived from the French “trésor trouvé” or found treasure, I can find no evidence that “trove” is today considered anything but a noun. My physical dictionaries, published in 1965 and 1988, say only noun, not adjective. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attributive and predicative adjectives

What is difference between? 106.76.71.74 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/adjectiv/attribut.htm Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hat Note Request

My Wiki skills are rusty. Could someone please throw in a hat note distinguishing "postpositive adjective" from "predicative adjective"? I just added an explanation here: [2] . Thanks! 100.19.66.49 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]