# blue patterned shirt (Order of the adjectives)



## Morning

I need help about the order of the adjectives.

_a blue patterned shirt_ or a _patterned blue shirt_ ?

I think the first option it's the correct one. However, I have found that the colour is at the end: _rules about order of the adjectives._


----------



## micafe

"a patterned blue shirt". 

If it were talking about the material it would be "the blue cotton shirt".


----------



## Morning

Thank you very much! 

patterned-checked-plain-striped : what kind of adjectives are they?


----------



## juan2937

Morning said:


> Thank you very much!
> 
> patterned-checked-plain-striped : what kind of adjectives are they?



*Past participle *adjectives.


----------



## Morning

Thanks!


----------



## Pandohra

I think Morning means the category: opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose (in order)
I would say colour, or are there more categories?


----------



## Morning

Yes, that´s right. I've read somewhere a category : _Past participle adjectives._


----------



## inib

juan2937 said:


> *Past participle *adjectives.


"Plain" is not a past participle.


----------



## juan2937

inib said:


> "Plain" is not a past participle.



For me *past participles * are ended -*ed *regular verbs or the irregular verbs pp.


----------



## donbill

It could be either. Are you talking about a *blue shirt that is patterned*, or are you talking about a *patterned shirt that is* *blue*? 

A *blue patterned shirt* is a patterned shirt that is blue; that is, we are stressing that it is patterned and happens to be blue. A *patterned blue shirt *is a blue shirt that is patterned*. *By putting the adjective closer to the noun, we give it priority. The trouble is that in speaking, we can change the importance of the adjectives by changing our intonation: It's a *patterned *blue shirt, not a *striped* blue shirt. It's a *blue* patterned shirt, not a *red* patterned shirt.

Es una camisa azul estampada. = It's a patterned blue shirt.
Es una camisa estampada azul. = It's a blue patterned shirt.

Es un poco difícil, ¿no?

Saludos


----------



## Forero

Puede escribirse "a blue-patterned shirt" (a shirt with a blue pattern, or with blue patterns) y "a plain-striped shirt" (a shirt with plain stripes). "Blue-patterned" y "plain-striped" son participios. También lo son "checkerboard-patterned" (más explícito), "checker-patterned", "checkered", y "checked" (más corto).


----------



## inib

juan2937 said:


> For me *past participles * are ended -*ed *regular verbs or the irregular verbs pp.


For me too! Regular or irregular. But what verb is "plain" supposed to come from?


----------



## juan2937

inib said:


> For me too! Regular or irregular. But what verb is "plain" supposed to come from?



Plain can be an adjective, noun or adverb but it is  not past participle.
As plain as day
The facts were plain to see.,
But is not a* past participle* or *verb*.


----------



## inib

juan2937 said:


> Plain can be an adjective, noun or adverb but it is  not past participle.
> As plain as day
> The facts were plain to see.,
> But is not a* past participle* or *verb*.


That's what I was saying all along. We seem to agree in the end


----------



## JennyTW

Morning said:


> Yes, that´s right. I've read somewhere a category : _Past participle adjectives._


In any case, here it's completely irrelevant whether the adjectives are past participles or not. What we are talking about is categories of adjectives in order to determine their order. "Plain, checked, patterned ", floral and striped" would all belong to the same category, but it would appear that this category isn't catered for in the usual list. They aren't colours or material and hardly opinion. 
I would definitely say "red checked shirt" and not "checked red shirt" and "blue floral dress" not "floral blue dress" and generally  "a blue patterned shirt" too.


----------



## Forero

JennyTW said:


> In any case, here it's completely irrelevant whether the adjectives are past participles or not. What we are talking about is categories of adjectives in order to determine their order. "Plain, checked, patterned ", floral and striped" would all belong to the same category, but it would appear that this category isn't catered for in the usual list. They aren't colours or material and hardly opinion.
> I would definitely say "red checked shirt" and not "checked red shirt" and "blue floral dress" not "floral blue dress" and generally  "a blue patterned shirt" too.


_Red_ and _blue_ are actually nouns that can be used attributively. As such they can be modified by adjectives, and the normal word order in English is modifying adjective before modified noun. So...

"Red checked" refers to a checkerboard pattern with red squares alternating with squares of another color. "Checked red" would be a kind of red, perhaps a red that goes less than "all the way", or a red that has been vetted (who knows?).

"Blue floral" refers to a pattern with blue flowers. "Floral blue" would be a kind of blue color, such as a blue associated with floral patterns, for example.

If we want to use, for example, "blue floral" to modify "pattern", we say "a blue floral pattern", not "a pattern blue floral" or "pattern a blue floral".

The noun phrase "blue floral pattern" can be used as a verb, whose past participle is of course "blue floral patterned". This participle can be used to modify something else, such as "cloth": "blue floral patterned cloth", and this cloth can be used to make a shirt: "a shirt (made) of blue floral patterned cloth" or "a blue floral patterned (cloth) shirt". We can leave "cloth" out of the latter phrase because practically all shirt are made of cloth, also known as "material".

When we form a noun phrase in English, we don't stop to sort modifiers into subtypes. We just put each modifier before what it modifies (except sometimes when we want to be poetic or whatever).


----------



## JennyTW

Forero said:


> _Red_ and _blue_ are actually nouns that can be used attributively. As such they can be modified by adjectives, and the normal word order in English is modifying adjective before modified noun. So...
> 
> "Red checked" refers to a checkerboard pattern with red squares alternating with squares of another color. "Checked red" would be a kind of red, perhaps a red that goes less than "all the way", or a red that has been vetted (who knows?).
> 
> "Blue floral" refers to a pattern with blue flowers. "Floral blue" would be a kind of blue color, such as a blue associated with floral patterns, for example.
> 
> If we want to use, for example, "blue floral" to modify "pattern", we say "a blue floral pattern", not "a pattern blue floral" or "pattern a blue floral".
> 
> The noun phrase "blue floral pattern" can be used as a verb, whose past participle is of course "blue floral patterned". This participle can be used to modify something else, such as "cloth": "blue floral patterned cloth", and this cloth can be used to make a shirt: "a shirt (made) of blue floral patterned cloth" or "a blue floral patterned (cloth) shirt". We can leave "cloth" out of the latter phrase because practically all shirt are made of cloth, also known as "material".
> 
> When we form a noun phrase in English, we don't stop to sort modifiers into subtypes. We just put each modifier before what it modifies (except sometimes when we want to be poetic or whatever).



I'm sorry but I disagree with a lot of what you say. 

Firstly "red checked" doesn't have to refer to what you say. A "red checked shirt" can be completely red with say, black woven lines forming squares. 

Of course we say "a blue floral pattern" and not "a pattern floral blue" or "pattern a floral blue" (!) because in English adjectives are placed before the noun. I think this goes without saying. 

"Blue floral pattern" is not used as a verb. (Just a minute, I'm blue floral patterning this material. Really?!)
"Pattern" is, hence the adjective "patterned". 

We don't just put each modifier before what it modifies - there is an established order for adjectives before a noun. 

"A beautiful old black leather suitcase". Here "beautiful" does not modify "old", nor does "old" modify "black". 
And the order tells students that "black beautiful old leather suitcase" is not correct.


----------



## donbill

Creo que estamos mareando la perdiz. Después de leer todas las contribuciones que hemos hecho, me identifico con la pobre criatura alada y me siento tan mareado como ella. (Pero he disfrutado muchísimo de la lectura.) 

At the moment I'm wearing a gray, striped shirt. The shirt is gray, and the stripes are white. That means, then, that I'm wearing a white-striped shirt that happens to be gray. It's a very appropriate shirt for me to wear. I'm color blind!

Saludos a todos


----------



## JennyTW

What is interesting is that the rule about adjective order in most (all?) grammar books doesn't include a category for striped/patterned etc.


----------



## Forero

JennyTW said:


> I'm sorry but I disagree with a lot of what you say.
> 
> Firstly "red checked" doesn't have to refer to what you say. A "red checked shirt" can be completely red with say, black woven lines forming squares.


Apparently the meaning of "checked" extends to things that are not exactly checkered.

Then "white checked shirt" makes sense, right? If it does, then you can make a white checked shirt red and you will get a red checked shirt.

Can you make a red shirt that is not checked into a checked shirt (e.g. by printing black lines on it to form squares)? If so, I maintain that you would then have a checked red shirt.

However, if the black lines have to be woven in for the shirt to be called "checked", then "checked red shirt" would not make much sense.

I really believe that the word order is based on what modifies what, loosely based on the order of events that make the thing the noun phrase names what it is, not on some obscure rule we natives follow without knowing we are following it.





> Of course we say "a blue floral pattern" and not "a pattern floral blue" or "pattern a floral blue" (!) because in English adjectives are placed before the noun. I think this goes without saying.


I think it needs to be said because this is what makes English word order so different from Spanish word order, and why this thread exists in the first place.





> "Blue floral pattern" is not used as a verb. (Just a minute, I'm blue floral patterning this material. Really?!)
> "Pattern" is, hence the adjective "patterned".


From the WR dictionary:





> *pattern1* /ˈpætən/
> [...]
> VB (transitive)
> [...]
> 2. to arrange as or decorate with a pattern


And "blue patterned" means "arranged or decorated with a blue pattern". "Blue" comes first because it modifies "pattern" and hence "patterned".





> We don't just put each modifier before what it modifies - there is an established order for adjectives before a noun.
> 
> "A beautiful old black leather suitcase". Here "beautiful" does not modify "old", nor does "old" modify "black".
> And the order tells students that "black beautiful old leather suitcase" is not correct.


Such an "established order" may help non-native learners, provided the order is unambiguous and not terribly complicated, but I as a native English speaker do not put things in the order I do because someone has "established" an order.

In "a beautiful old black leather suitcase", "beautiful" modifies either "old black leather" or "old black leather suitcase". It is ambiguous. "Beautiful" comes first because the leather is still the same leather, and the suitcase remains the same suitcase, even if you call it ugly and I call it beautiful.

"An old beautiful suitcase" is not bad grammar, but it suggests a beautiful suitcase that has become old, which in turn suggests that it may be rather less beautiful than the aforementioned beautiful old suitcase.

I agree with Donbill. Both "a blue patterned shirt" and "a patterned blue shirt" are grammatical, but the meaning is a little different. Contrasted with a solid blue shirt, a patterned blue shirt is not as blue; contrasted with a red patterned shirt, a blue patterned shirt has a pattern that has more blue in it than red.


----------



## Forero

JennyTW said:


> What is interesting is that the rule about adjective order in most (all?) grammar books doesn't include a category for striped/patterned etc.


None of the grammar books I had in K-12 had such a rule, and no such rule was ever needed since we were all native speakers.

There really is no such rule that is both useful and complete. The same problems plague such an "established order" rule as come into play with every version of the "_i_ before _e_" rule, plus the fact that the order of adjectives before a noun is not really fixed but variable according to the needs of native speakers.


----------



## JennyTW

Forero said:


> Apparently the meaning of "checked" extends to things that are not exactly checkered.
> 
> Then "white checked shirt" makes sense, right? If it does, then you can make a white checked shirt red and you will get a red checked shirt.
> 
> Can you make a red shirt that is not checked into a checked shirt (e.g. by printing black lines on it to form squares)? If so, I maintain that you would then have a checked red shirt.
> 
> However, if the black lines have to be woven in for the shirt to be called "checked", then "checked red shirt" would not make much sense.
> 
> I really believe that the word order is based on what modifies what, loosely based on the order of events that make the thing the noun phrase names what it is, not on some obscure rule we natives follow without knowing we are following it.I think it needs to be said because this is what makes English word order so different from Spanish word order, and why this thread exists in the first place.From the WR dictionary:And "blue patterned" means "arranged or decorated with a blue pattern". "Blue" comes first because it modifies "pattern" and hence "patterned".Such an "established order" may help non-native learners, provided the order is unambiguous and not terribly complicated, but I as a native English speaker do not put things in the order I do because someone has "established" an order.
> 
> In "a beautiful old black leather suitcase", "beautiful" modifies either "old black leather" or "old black leather suitcase". It is ambiguous. "Beautiful" comes first because the leather is still the same leather, and the suitcase remains the same suitcase, even if you call it ugly and I call it beautiful.
> 
> "An old beautiful suitcase" is not bad grammar, but it suggests a beautiful suitcase that has become old, which in turn suggests that it may be rather less beautiful than the aforementioned beautiful old suitcase.
> 
> I agree with Donbill. Both "a blue patterned shirt" and "a patterned blue shirt" are grammatical, but the meaning is a little different. Contrasted with a solid blue shirt, a patterned blue shirt is not as blue; contrasted with a red patterned shirt, a blue patterned shirt has a pattern that has more blue in it than red.



We, as native speakers, clearly don't put things in order because someone has established an order, just as we don't need to know other grammar rules to speak correctly. We just do it instinctively. But as I mentioned, how else can students learn that a "black beautiful old leather suitcase" isn't correct? An order is probably simpler for them to learn than an ambiguous what-modifies-what explanation.


----------



## Forero

JennyTW said:


> We, as native speakers, clearly don't put things in order because someone has established an order, just as we don't need to know other grammar rules to speak correctly. We just do it instinctively. But as I mentioned, how else can students learn that a "black beautiful old leather suitcase" isn't correct? An order is probably simpler for them to learn than an ambiguous what-modifies-what explanation.


Isn't correct? I think it depends on what you mean to say.

It does make sense to put an extreme value judgement (such as "beautiful") first because the thing remains what it is no matter what one's opinion of it. Such a value judgement is normally "overlaid" on the meaning of what follows.


----------



## juan2937

Forero said:


> Isn't correct? I think it depends on what you mean to say.
> 
> It does make sense to put an extreme value judgement (such as "beautiful") first because the thing remains what it is no matter what one's opinion of it. Such a value judgement is normally "overlaid" on the meaning of what follows.



I have learned the adjectives order before nouns as follow :
1.- *description before classification*: leather (description) dancing (classificaction) shoes (noun)
2.- *opinion before description *: a beautiful (opinion) old (description)house (noun).
3,. order of descriptive words :
*size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-noun.
a) numbers before adjectives
b) first, next and last before one,two, three, etc.
c) noun modifiers usually follow  adjectives :
*enormous *black*( adjective) *iron *(noun)* gates (noun).

I have seen in my grammar books :
a constant small- after the adjective only
a dark-haired man
a nuclear-powered submarine
a short-sleeved shirt
a) Is this dash a linking between the front adjectives and the noun?
b) Is this fixed pattern the position of the past participle between the adjectives and noun?
*


----------



## Forero

juan2937 said:


> I have learned the adjectives order before nouns as follow :
> 1.- *description before classification*: leather (description) dancing (classificaction) shoes (noun)
> 2.- *opinion before description *: a beautiful (opinion) old (description)house (noun).
> 3,. order of descriptive words :
> *size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-noun.
> a) numbers before adjectives
> b) first, next and last before one,two, three, etc.
> c) noun modifiers usually follow  adjectives :
> *enormous *black*( adjective) *iron *(noun)* gates (noun).
> 
> I have seen in my grammar books :
> a constant small- after the adjective only
> a dark-haired man
> a nuclear-powered submarine
> a short-sleeved shirt
> a) Is this dash a linking between the front adjectives and the noun?
> b) Is this fixed pattern the position of the past participle between the adjectives and noun?
> *


This means that the things connected with hyphens are to be taken together to modify what follows. For example a short-sleeved shirt is a shirt with short sleeves, not a sleeved shirt that is short.

Thus a blue-patterned shirt is a shirt with a blue pattern, not a patterned shirt that is blue. In this case I see very little difference, so you could leave off the hyphens. In other cases too many words get connected with hyphens and we prefer to leave them off despite the ambiguity.


----------



## juan2937

Forero said:


> This means that the things connected with hyphens are to be taken together to modify what follows. For example a short-sleeved shirt is a shirt with short sleeves, not a sleeved shirt that is short.
> 
> Thus a blue-patterned shirt is a shirt with a blue pattern, not a patterned shirt that is blue. In this case I see very little difference, so you could leave off the hyphens. In other cases too many words get connected with hyphens and we prefer to leave them off despite the ambiguity.



Thank you very much for your answer


----------



## JennyTW

I know that hyphens in compound adjectives are dying out somewhat (in the US they are not used much and in the UK, less than before). While it's true that overuse can be annoying, it's also true that they have an important part to play in avoiding ambiguity. For example;

A light blue suit (a suit that is blue and light in weight)
A light-blue suit (a suit that is a light shade of blue)

An old brick house (a house that is old and made of bricks)
An old-brick house (a house that is made of old bricks)

A man eating lion (a man who is eating lion meat)
A man-eating lion (a lion that eats men)

The trick for deciding whether you need a hyphen is this;
Check to see if both adjectives separately refer to the noun; "small time criminal" Is he a small criminal? No. And a time criminal?(!) No. So you should use a hyphen - a small-time criminal. Of course, here there is no ambiguity, but I, personally (perhaps because I'm from the UK), prefer to use a hyphen.


----------

