13

I can ask any of:

Do you know a breakfast place nearby?
Do you know a nearby breakfast place?
Do you know a good breakfast place?

but I really can't ask:

Do you know a breakfast place good?

Is there a general rule for determining whether an adjective must come before the noun or may come, Spanish-style, after it?

James Waldby - jwpat7
  • 66,660
jabrew
  • 1,159
  • In "a place nearby", nearby is not an adjective. And you've actually made the steps to verify that yourself, by substituting a different word that unmistakably is an adjective, and getting an ungrammatical result. – RegDwigнt Jul 28 '12 at 16:36
  • @RegDwightАΑA Oh? What word do you think it is that nearby applies to? It cannot apply to know, and you have scant few choices left. I see no difference between “a nearby breakfast place” and “a breakfast place nearby”. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 16:39
  • 1
    Yet “Do you know a place good for late breakfasts?” works just fine. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 16:40
  • 8
    @tchrist: in "a breakfast place nearby", nearby is an adverb of place. You can substitute it with somewhere, here, etc., or an adverbial phrase such as in Moscow. In your other example, "Do you know a place good for late breakfasts?", there is an omitted that is introducing a separate clause. It's a completely different construction altogether. That being said, things such as "The city beautiful" are possible in English. – RegDwigнt Jul 28 '12 at 16:43
  • @RegDwightАΑA I do not deny that nearby describes a location. I just cannot see how you can think it is describing anything other than the word place. Given that nearby is a modifier of the word place, and place is here a noun, then nearby is by definition here functioning as an adjective. What is your alternate reading? I know lots of *nearby places; how can that not* be an adjective there?! Noun modifiers are never called adverbs, only adjectives. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 16:55
  • @RegDwightA: I agree; but not that do you know a place [that is] near by probably contains the same elliptical construction originally. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jul 28 '12 at 16:58
  • 2
    @tchrist: That is a bold statement. In a place in India, it cannot be said that in India is an adjective. It is more complicated than that. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jul 28 '12 at 16:59
  • @Cerberus I stand my ground: in “I know lots of nearby places”, nearby is inarguably an adjective. As for your place in India, in is clearly a preposition, and the entire prepositional phrase is acting adjectivally because it is modifying a noun. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 17:01
  • This clearly defines nearby as an adjective, just as I have been saying. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 17:07
  • 1
    @tchrist: If in India were acting adjectivally, you'd be able to say, "I know an in India place". – RegDwigнt Jul 28 '12 at 18:01
  • @RegDwightАΑA No, that isn’t true; this is another example of John’s rule. In “I need a toy for little kids”, the prepositional phrase is acting adjectivally because it is attached to the noun toy. You cannot place it before the noun due to John’s rule, so “I need a ∗for little kids toy” is illegal. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a noun modifier; it certainly is. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 18:07
  • 2
    @tchrist: My point is that "adjective" and "modifying a noun" are not exactly the same thing. I agree that "nearby" is unequivocally modifying "place" in "a nearby place", but it is perhaps not absurd to view it as an elliptical adjectival clause of which only the adverb is left ("I know this place [that is] nearby"). But I am not necessarily against calling it an adjective in "a nearby place": I merely have second thoughts about calling it an adjective in "a place nearby". – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jul 29 '12 at 11:36

2 Answers2

12

The general rule is

One-word modifiers precede the noun; modifiers of more than one word follow the noun.

I call this the Eleven-year-old boy rule.

If you make a single word out of a phrase, it can precede (that's what the hyphens are for in writing), but it's got different syntax, because preceding adjectives are not declined for number.

Note the plural years and singular year below:

  • A boy eleven years old rescued the princess.
  • An eleven-year-old boy rescued the princess.

If you pluralized the second year, or used singular year in the first, they'd be ungrammatical.

Nearby, while it is enough of a single word to precede, still retains enough independence in its two consituents near and by to follow, as well. It's in transition from one state to the other.

Language changes, word by word and phrase by phrase, as we continue to speak it.
In fact, it changes because we continue to speak it.

Community
  • 1
John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • 1
    Nice. I believe that that also explains why you can say “the boy within” but not “the ∗within boy”, versus “the boy ∗inner” being disallowed in favor of “the inner boy”. Right? – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 17:38
  • 4
    For a general rule which even copes with oddities like nearby this is beautifully elegant! – Andrew Leach Jul 28 '12 at 17:58
  • 1
    Your first example sentence itself is not-grammatical. Instead: "A boy, eleven years old, rescued the princess." You can see this if you take out the number: "A boy years old rescued the princess." The latter sentence doesn't work regardless of pluralization of 'years,' without adding commas. – New Alexandria Jul 28 '12 at 18:06
  • 2
    True; that sentence is not grammatical. But years old is not a constituent, while eleven years and eleven years old are constituents. One can't just delete numbers anywhere one wishes; syntactic rules only apply to constituents. Plus, punctuation is not present in language, only in writing, and has nothing to do with grammar. – John Lawler Jul 28 '12 at 18:10
  • 2
    @NewAlexandria You are mistaken: John’s own sentence is perfectly grammatical in English. “A boy eleven years old should be tall enough to play” and similar versions are perfectly fine. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 18:10
  • I think this concept of a "general rule" is entirely contextual to a colloquial use of the language. See my answer; I think that "Do you know a breakfast place nearby?" can be seen as a form that is in-use, but not the most essential presentation of the language. – New Alexandria Jul 28 '12 at 18:11
  • 1
    @NewAlexandria *“Colloquial”*? What are you talking about? If you think it is somehow more correct to stick in a bunch of superfluous words, you are mistaken. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 18:12
  • @tchrist - Probably s/he is talking about non-standard English. –  Jul 28 '12 at 18:14
  • @tchrist it is not. 'A boy eleven' is not a proper subject. "Eleven years old" is a descriptor that is optional, and optional sentence-parts are wrapped in commas. – New Alexandria Jul 28 '12 at 18:16
  • 3
    @NewAlexandria: the commas around 'eleven years old' are determined by whether it's a restrictive or non-restrictive clause; tchrist's example (unlike John Lawler's) was chosen so it *must* be a restrictive clause, which means you *cannot* put commas around it. – Peter Shor Jul 28 '12 at 18:18
  • 2
    @NewAlexandria Utter nonsense. We’re talking about language here, not punctilious punctuational obsessions. You’re just making this stuff up. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 18:19
  • A boy of eleven years should be tall enough to play. A boy that is eleven years old should be tall enough to play. A boy aged eleven years should be tall enough to play. A boy eleven years old should be tall enough to play. ....one of these things (the last one) is not like the other. A restrictive clause is not not carte-blanche to drop parts of the sentence. – New Alexandria Jul 30 '12 at 05:58
  • Doesn't the idiomatic expression 'nine days' wonder' provide an exception to the rule 'preceding adjectives are not declined for number' (and to the rule about the need to 'make a single word out of a phrase' before it may be used attributively)? Admittedly, I can't think of any other similar cases. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 30 '12 at 21:26
  • @EdwinAshworth: Not really. It's a genitive, and the possessive -'s cliticizes to the end of a full NP. The rule is about predicational ("adjective") modifiers, not possessives. – John Lawler Jul 30 '12 at 21:53
  • @John: I don't know if I'm imagining things, but might there be a tendency to speak the words more quickly when a "multi-word adjective" comes before the noun it modifies? It's been suggested this answer is relevant to my hypothesis that "-ly adverb" + p.p. verb adjectives are more likely to be hyphenated when the come before the noun. Perhaps the hypothesis is rubbish anyway - but if there is anything to it, could "speed of oral delivery" be a factor? – FumbleFingers Mar 07 '14 at 13:16
-3

You are missing the role of 'that/which' in proper grammatical construction:

The locations:

"Do you know a breakfast place, which is nearby?"

"Do you know a breakfast place that is nearby?"

"Do you know a nearby breakfast place?"

The qualities:

"Do you know a good breakfast place?"

to switch these, you must ask:

"Do you know a breakfast place that is good?"

"Do you know a breakfast place, which is good?"

Your question presents a wonderful example of what people often call a "problem" with the English language — which in reality is a problem with the colloquial use of the English language.

(p.s. in some sense location can present as much of a qualification as food excellence, but most people will not be so technical in their thinking)

New Alexandria
  • 3,879
  • 1
    What the heck are you talking about with this allegedly “proper” business? You don’t somehow make a sentence more correct by sticking in a bunch of extra words. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 18:15
  • 2
    Ah, you appear to be referring to the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. That distinction turns out not to be relevant in this case. – John Lawler Jul 28 '12 at 18:17
  • 1
    @tchrist your down-vote goes too far. This usage is original, not the way that we have come to use the language (here in the US). It is true that "Do you know a breakfast place that is good?" is correct grammar, and show the correct form of that arrangement, as sought by the OP – New Alexandria Jul 28 '12 at 18:22
  • 3
    Looks like you got three downvotes, Alex my dear. Whom else are you planning to accuse? And what is this nutty “in the US” business about? You have a rotten sense for correctness and propriety and formalism and region, misleading you into saying completely ludicrous things. It is not some special characteristic of American English to speak colloquially or “improperly” as you seem to claim. Nor is what you call colloquial in any fashion substandard, abnormal, ungrammatical, or wrong. You’re just making stuff up. – tchrist Jul 28 '12 at 18:23
  • 2
    I can't agree with this answer - it doesn't seem to cover the relevant point, which is that nearby can be used as an adjective or an adverb. – Matt E. Эллен Jul 28 '12 at 18:53
  • NewAlexandria, I downvoted because you were not in my opinion responsive to the main thrust of the question: that "Do you know a breakfast place nearby?" is undoubtedly a grammatical and complete sentence, but 'nearby' seems to land in a strange place for an adjective. – Mark Beadles Jul 29 '12 at 17:39
  • But which is it? "Eleven-year-old-boy rule" (a rule issued by an eleven-year-old boy) or "Eleven-year-old boy rule" (a boy rule that is eleven years old")? That's the question. – whippoorwill Mar 01 '14 at 21:33