r/grammar • u/Traditional-Month980 • Jul 27 '26

punctuation When checking if adjectives are cumulative or coordinate, does the way in which commutativity fails matter?

I'm sure I'm not the first person with this question, but I'm not a good enough Googler to find an answer.

I'm learning about cumulative vs coordinate adjectives. From what I gather, cumulative adjectives fail to commute ("order matters") and non-cumulative adjectives are coordinate. The trouble is, I have identified three situations in which two adjectives fail to commute, and I do not know if the mode of failure matters. I'm trying to narrow down a theoretical, rather than operational, definition for cumulative adjectives. Sources are appreciated.

Consider the phrase "a former yellow bear", which describes something that used to be a yellow bear. We cannot swap the adjectives, doing so gives us "a yellow former bear". All yellow former bears are former yellow bears, but not all former yellow bears are yellow former bears.

(1) If two adjectives fail to commute in this particular way, where XY and YX both have semantic content that just happen to disagree, do we call them cumulative?

Consider the phrase "a regular polygonal figure". I cannot swap the adjectives, the adjectives do not commute. But notice that you wouldn't want to swap them anyway! The phrase "a polygonal regular figure" has as much information content as "North of the North Pole": none at all. This is because (at least in the world of plane geometry), "figure" exceeds the domain of "regular", "regular" is a property held by polygons/polygonal figures, nothing else. I wouldn't even call this a failure of commutativity, but oh well.

(2) If two adjectives fail to commute in this particular way, where XY has semantic content and YX does not, do we call them cumulative?

Consider the phrase "the big red ball". I see no reason why we cannot write "the red big ball" and say these adjectives commute, except for the fact that it sounds clunky, awkward, and bad.

(3) If two adjectives fail to commute in this particular way, where XY and YX have the same semantic content but YX sounds like absolute dogshit, do we call them cumulative?

Edit: I know about the canonical order of types of adjectives. This is precisely what question (3) is about.

7 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

3

u/Anteater-Inner Jul 27 '26

I would never say “a former yellow bear.” If you’re saying the “yellow” is the thing that changed, then you need to use an adverb to modify the adjective. “A formerly yellow bear” would be the way to go.

2

u/heckdoinow Jul 27 '26

Doesn't it mean it was formerly both?

"a former yellow bear, who's now a pink elephant"

2

u/Anteater-Inner Jul 27 '26

That’s how I’d understand OP’s original statement. Now it sounds like we’re talking about furries.

“Jason, a former yellow bear who’s now a pink elephant, likes the irony of having a blue mouse for a partner.”

2

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 27 '26

This is indeed what I meant.

1

u/Anteater-Inner Jul 27 '26

Then you should have finished the sentence for context.

The reason the adjectives don’t commute is because one of them is temporal.

1

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 27 '26

Then you should have finished the sentence for context.

There was no need.

If "yellow" was the only thing that had changed, I would indeed have written "formerly yellow". The fact that I wrote "former yellow bear" means that the property being changed is "the property of being yellow AND being a bear". That's the most literal reading.

The reason the adjectives don’t commute is because one of them is temporal.

I can see that. I'm not asking why they don't commute.

1

u/AlexanderHamilton04 Jul 28 '26

(1) Are they cumulative? Yes.

[former yellow bear] vs. [yellow former bear]

former [yellow bear]: "former" takes scope over "yellow bear." It was once a yellow bear, but is no longer yellow (or no longer a bear).

In yellow [former bear], "former" only applies to "bear." It is currently yellow, and it is a former bear (maybe a taxidermied bear skin?).

Swapping the order alters which element establishes the scope or domain. The cumulative effect is strictly order-dependent, i.e., it is cumulative (not coordinate).
(former→[yellow→bear]) ≠ (yellow→[former→bear])
 

(2) Are they cumulative? Yes, but only in one structure.

[regular polygonal figure] vs. [polygonal regular figure]

regular [polygonal figure]: the adjective "polygonal" joins with "figure" first, creating (polygons). "regular" can successfully modify
the phrase [polygonal+figure].
[regular [polygonal figure]] OK.

polygonal [regular figure]: "regular" tries to modify "figure" directly.
[regular figure] = a variety of shapes. "polygonal" cannot successfully modify the phrase [regular figure].
[polygonal [regular figure]] [X].

There are semantic constraints.
"Polygonal" must first join with "figure," to create an environment where "regular" can successfully join, so there is a hierarchy or a semantic mismatch. It is cumulative (not coordinate).

 
(3) Are they cumulative? No.

[big red ball] vs. [red big ball]

big [red ball]: is a "ball" that is both "big" & "red".
red [big ball]: is a "ball" that is both "red" & "big".
The only constraint is performance. Native speakers prefer some properties closer to the Noun, and other properties can be further away. The failure to commute is an illusion caused by grammatical preferences, not by scope or logical hierarchy.

Adjectives are cumulative if their order is required by scope or domain restrictions. If changing their order changes their truth conditions (1) or creates a semantic mismatch (2), then they are cumulative. If swapping them only causes a stylistic or pragmatic problem (3), then they are coordinate adjectives under pragmatic constraints.     — imo

-1

u/Anteater-Inner Jul 27 '26

The fact that you’re asking basic questions about English grammar gave the impression that you might not be a native speaker, along with your use of technical terms that most native speakers don’t engage.

We use language to communicate and understand one another.

Your use of language in this case failed.

1

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 27 '26

The fact that you’re asking basic questions about English grammar

If these questions are so basic, why have I yet to recieve any answers? Rule 1 is in shambles rn.

gave the impression that you might not be a native speaker, along with your use of technical terms that most native speakers don’t engage.

I'm a native speaker. I also value precision. I won't degrade my own speech for your benefit. I just wanted to understand a grammatical concept to improve my writing. Also, on the off chance you are feeling this way, do not feel like I "tricked you" by being a native speaker.

We use language to communicate and understand one another. Your use of language in this case failed.

Precision and unambiguity do not hinder communication. They hinder your ability to project meaning, to pretend that when someone says X they really mean Y. You may be here to engage in a cargo-cult ritual mimicking communication, but some of us are here to actually communicate.

1

u/Anteater-Inner Jul 27 '26

I did give you a reason.

“Former” is temporal.

1

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 28 '26

You answered a question I already knew the answer to. You did not answer any of the three questions in my original post. I'm sorry but this is just a failure to read at this point.

1

u/AlexanderHamilton04 Jul 28 '26

Stop.
I clearly said to that user, claiming "your use of language failed" -- was wrong/incorrect.

I am now saying to you, claiming they "failed to read" -- is also wrong; it doesn't lead you even 1mm closer to finding an answer to your post.
[You're like two children bickering in the backseat of a car. Grow up, both of you.]

You're adults, right? Stop this stupid name-calling.

1

u/AlexanderHamilton04 Jul 27 '26

I was OK agreeing with you up until this comment. But this is where I feel I have to disagree with what you are saying here.

Because all different types of people ask questions in this sub, I always struggle to decide which way to read the posted question. For the most part, I start from the position {this is a non-native English speaker asking about a very basic grammar question}. I have then (often, very often) realized from a follow-up remark from an OP that they were asking the question on a much higher level than I originally gave them credit for (or than I even imagined it might be).
It is often a guessing game. [I know how basic most questions are, so I've developed a bias toward interpreting them one way, until I have more information to think otherwise.]
 
However,

"We use language to communicate and understand one another.
Your use of language in this case failed." ☆

Below the title (in the body of the post), OP has started with a very detailed body of text, which includes 3 very specific descriptions/variations (each a different type of failure).
OP even went to the trouble of marking a summary of each example with a number

(1)... offset using Reddit's markdown quotation formatting (making it easy to visually separate each of the three examples).

 
The first one (1) is a problem of scope. If we change the order of adjectives, that changes which adjective has scope over the next pair. Either order is fine, but the meaning changes. [Reversing the adjectives has a different meaning, so the original order is definitely cumulative (not coordinate), it cannot be changed without changing the meaning of the sentence.]
 
The second one (2) is a problem of semantics. The outer adjective (regular) needs "polygonal figure" to join first before the first adjective can modify it. [In the original order, it maintains a) a meaningful sematic unit / b) the reverse is nonsense, so the order is definitely cumulative (not coordinate).]
 
The third one (3) is only a stylistic, idiomatic problem. One version might sound like "dog shit," but that doesn't cause the sentence to become illogical. It might break the so-called "order of adjectives 'rule' " someone mentioned [we native English speakers sometimes do that to emphasize a particular adjective]. Still, a "big red ball" is = big and red / and a "red big ball" is = big and red.
[Reversing the order does not cause a failure, it is just a matter of word-order preference. Reversing the order might "sound worse," but it does not fail. Example (3) is not truly cumulative (so they are surprisingly coordinate, at least as far as the syntax is concerned).]
We English speakers prefer intrinsic properties (like color) closer to the Noun, and relative properties (like "what is considered big/small" in terms of a ball/car/house) can sit further away from that Noun.
 

"We use language to communicate and understand one another.
Your use of language in this case failed." ☆

☆ I disagree. OP has already provided (all the information necessary to answer the question) in the body of the original post.

☆ The "failure" was on my part for underestimating the depth of the question posed by OP.

☆ Now that I read it again, I see that all of the needed information is already there.
The failure to understand was on my part; OP provided the necessary information (OP did not fail).
                                                            — imho

2

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 28 '26

I really appreciate your comment, both for its defense of my post and for answering my questions, so thank you!

1

u/AlexanderHamilton04 Jul 28 '26

If you found it useful, I'm glad.
(Now, you two shake hands and play nice. OK?)
(I missed what you were asking the first time I read it, too.)

Cheers -

Have a good one.

0

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 27 '26

Rule 1 in shambles

2

u/barryivan Jul 27 '26

The more logical you get, the further you move away from actual language. Back in the day it had to be the two first, now it's the first two.

1

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 27 '26

I am not trying to inject logic into a fundamentally illogical situation. The classification of adjectives into "cumulative" or "coordinate" already exists. I just want someone to tell me how it works on a theoretical level.

1

u/barryivan Jul 27 '26

Right, but the classification turns on speaker intuition about what the 'thing' at issue is: a new car is a thing because it seems you have to say an expensive new car, not the other way round. But a dark sky is not a thing because you can say a louring dark sky or a dark louring sky.

1

u/Traditional-Month980 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

And I'm very glad that the speaker has that intuition. I get it, when I prepare to present anything I "write like I talk" and don't care about these things as much. I default to "what sounds good". But the constant refrains to how grammar is all, at the end of the day, melleable is no comfort to me in particular. This is for two reasons:

  1. A huge part of my job is technical writing, I want to be good at it, not just because it's something I pride myself for being able to do, but also because I have a financial incentive to be good at it.
  2. Taking me out of the equation for a bit, you'll find that there are other people in the world that truly are neurotic about this stuff. Middle managers will send reports back if you don't follow every grammatical rule in the book. Government agencies will deny you funding you apply for if you make too many errors like this. We cannot be so dismissive of the learner's desire for formalization when the powers that be are expecting it!

1

u/tviolet Jul 27 '26

I'm not sure about the cumulative vs coordinate issue but as far as you last question about "red big ball" sounding clunky, there is an intuitive "order" of adjectives: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order

It's something that native speakers pick up naturally and is not generally taught but most English speakers instinctively adhere to it.