# EN: order of adjectives - ordre des adjectifs



## pieanne

_an Indian divorced woman_ / _a divorced Indian woman_

I have some doubts about the place of "Indian" in the sentence. Would you tell me how you justify the place of the word, please?
Because a woman is first Indian, then divorced?
Thanks!

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads merged to create this one.


----------



## la_cavalière

_a divorced Indian woman_ 

Pianne, unfortunately I can't explain it grammatically, and I'm not sure if there's a rule that governs the order of adjectives before  a noun. I just know it sounds better to my ear.


----------



## Kat LaQ

Regarding the order of the adjectives, I agree with la cavalière that it has to be _divorced Indian_ woman.

THe rules appear to be complicated.   But I found these _two interesting_ (numbers always come first )  links:

http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/adjective_order.html
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/adjectives-order_1.htm


----------



## marget

Bonjour Pieanne

I think the adjective that "comes first" immediately precedes the noun in English - a divorced Indian woman, a happy little girl, a handsome French actor, an old American custom, a complicated political issue...


----------



## neliha76

bonjour tout le monde,

J'ai un problème avec l'ordre des adjectifs en anglais
Est-ce que la règle c'est bien ça ?

Je connais la règle, c'est a dire,
*1. Opinion*: good, bad ..
*2. Taille*: big, small..
*3. Forme*: round,
*4. Age*: old, young
*5. Couleur*: blue, pink
*6. Origine*: nationalités
*7. Matière*: woollen,

Est-ce que c'est bien ça ?


J'ai beau avoir appris par coeur l'odre, je rencontre souvent des difficultés à les mettre dans le bon ordre car ya des adjectifs dont j'ignore la catégorie dans laquelle il se placerait

ex: The Anti-devolutionist Scottish Labour MP

Est-ce le bon ordre ? Pourquoi ?
Auriez-vous une règle plus complète ?


----------



## boterham

bonjour,
voici un lien utile.
http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blgr_adjective_order.htm


----------



## neliha76

Boterham merci pour le lien

Avant de poster mon mail, j'ai aussi fait un petit tour sur le net pour voir si je trouvais plus d'information que cette liste, je n'y suis pas parvenu, d'où mon post

J'essaye de comprendre comment on fait avec ce genre d'adjectifs que je n'arrive pas à caser dans la liste par manque de transparence sans doute...

Anti-devolutionist appartient à quel catégorie alors ?
Labour/Conservative?


----------



## boterham

Pour répondre à votre question je dirais qu'il est difficile (bien que certainement possible) de tout catégoriser. 
Cependant, l'ordre que vous proposez me semble correct. 
En ce qui me concerne, plutôt qu'apprendre ces catégories par coeur, j'applique une règle simple qui veut que l'on commence par les adjectifs les plus précis/singuliers/rares pour finir par les plus communs/normaux/banals.
Ensuite la pratique fait le reste


----------



## berndf

No, I don’t think it is subjective. My mother tong is German an in Germany we never learned these rules in English class; yet I didn’t have the slightest hesitations when intuitively solving the little quiz at the end of the page at esl.about.com. So I am pretty sure this is rather deeply rooted in the logic of Germanic languages. But I have no idea what is the deeper logic behind this.


----------



## boterham

Non, ce n'est pas subjectif par contre je me suis trompé, il faut partir du plus général pour terminer vers le particulier... Désolé ! Le quizz sur la page en lien n'est pas mal et devrait vous aider. Et ce site est fiable et les ressources de bonne qualité. A garder dans les favoris !


----------



## berndf

I am not sure your explanation is correct. As I said, I am not sure what the logic is. But it is always a "wonderful Italian vase", irrespective of whether there are more Italian vases or more wonderful vases.


----------



## boterham

Hi! Yes, thanks for your comment. The logic is explained on the linked page i.e. 7 categories used in the order given. Because the order of the adjective groups is not easy to learn I was just trying to give another way of remembering them, i.e. from the most general to the most singular, which comes down to the exact same thing as the order of the 7 categories as there is only one correct word order of course.

Edit: for example in the phrase you're giving, wonderful is general and Italian is more precise and specific so Italian goes after wonderful. I hope this is clear


----------



## jann

It seems to me that we place adjectives that describe inherent characteristics and identifying properties closer to the noun, and adjectives which are more subjective or could change over time farther from the noun.  It seems to me that nouns used as adjectives (thus making compound nouns) are rarely split from the noun.  So in some ways, you could say that the adjective closest to the noun is the most important one.  

The Anti-devolutionist Scottish Labour MP

Labor is noun, being used to describe this MP's party affiliation.  He is thus a "Labor MP."  This is the compound noun we will modify, and it is unsplittable.  The MPs "Scottish" affiliation is more inherent, identifying and permanent than his "anti-devolutionist" affiliation, so "Scottish" is placed closer to the noun.

These are just the observations of a native speaker...  and as you know, native speakers go on gut reactions more than formal training.   I imagine that some non-native speaker who has studied English grammar will be able to come along and tell us whether or not these observations are useful or generalizable.


----------



## boterham

Interesting! Thank you! The adjective closest to the noun is the most important ... well yes, it is the most specific, it is what makes the noun special or even unique, so in one way it comes down to applying the same rules as given on the web link.


----------



## berndf

Almost! As jann pointed out it is the most _inherent _property which is closest to the noun. You have to be aware that the interpretation is right-associative as mathematicians would call it: A "wonderful old Italian vase" is interpreted as: "among the vases there are Italian ones", "among the Italian vases there are old ones" and "among the old Italian vases there are wonderful ones".

I think this associativity rule explains very well why you would say "Scottish Labour MP", if you were referring to a "Labour member of the _Westminster_ parliament who is from Scotland".
If, on the other hand, you meant a "Labour member of the _Scottish_ parliament" you could *not* say "Scottish Labour MP".


----------



## P22T33

En général, et sauf dans des cas exceptionnels très particuliers où l'auteur force une tournure linguistique de la phrase pour en modifier intentionnellement le sens, on suit l'ordre logique selon lequel l'adjectif le plus proche du nom est celui qui est le plus difficile à modifier dans la réalité.


----------



## Yoyobzh

Hi there,

Thanks for all these useful contributions. Indeed, this is an issue for non-German languages native speakers. The intuitive explanation of the rule (from Jann) is even more interesting than the raw rule itself. But in spite of these elements I cannot decide which is the good order on the following:

*1- specific additional criteria
2- additional specific criteria*

I would say #2 because "specific" sounds more... "specific" but I'm not sure at all!
Any idea?


----------



## P22T33

The second choice is indeed better:

additional specific …


----------



## jann

I cannot say that either is "better." They are simply different, and I can imagine contexts for each, The order chosen reflects what is more important/inherent about the criteria you are describing.

A. Criteria are provided, and these criteria are rather specific.  For more information, the reader should refer to extra criteria (also specific) that are provided elsewhere. Here, you have "specific criteria" of which some are principal/primary and others additional. _-->  additional specific criteria_.

B. General criteria are provided.  For more information, the reader should refer to extra criteria that are provided elsewhere.  These extra criteria (a) may be more detailed (specific) than the general criteria, or (b) they may apply only to particular (specific) cases.  Here you have "additional criteria" which are in some way more specific than the primary/principal criteria. _--> specific additional criteria_


----------



## berndf

It depends with what you contrast it (see also #12):

If you have _specific __criteria_ which are either _original_ of _additional_ you say _additional_ _specific criteria._

If you have _additional criteria_ which are either _general_ or _specific_ you say _specific additional_ _criteria._


----------



## redlum

Mnemonic*  ODASCOM* should help to remind the rule .
*-O*pinion
*-D*imension
*-A*ge
*-S*hape
*-C*olor
*-O*rigin
*-M*aterial

All the best,
Redlum


----------

