I wonder why "A Nation Divided" is in this headline instead of "A Divided Nation". To me, from how I am taught, isn't an adjective supposed to go before the noun? I am not a native speaker.
Asked
Active
Viewed 3,682 times
26
-
4Related: Why do some adjectives follow the nouns they modify? – herisson Apr 30 '17 at 02:15
-
3The simplified rule that adjectives go before the noun will keep you out of trouble most of the time, but it has many exceptions. – Xanne Apr 30 '17 at 05:36
7 Answers
42
It's an allusion to a very famous speech by Abraham Lincoln, which included the line:
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.
As you see, in Lincoln's speech divided is accompanied by a following complement, against itself. A modifier which itself has a following modifier or complement cannot be placed in front of the head noun, but must be placed after it.
StoneyB on hiatus
- 68,905
-
32Lincoln's speech was itself an allusion to a Bible verse, and the use of phrases containing the words "a nation divided" existed prior to the Gettysburg address (1863): see https://books.google.com/books?id=KFBDAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA449&dq=%22a+nation+divided%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjThPnKjcvTAhXhxYMKHbYlBqQQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=%22a%20nation%20divided%22&f=false, https://books.google.com/books?id=-kMMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA358&dq=%22a+nation+divided%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjThPnKjcvTAhXhxYMKHbYlBqQQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=%22a%20nation%20divided%22&f=false – herisson Apr 30 '17 at 02:14
-
15@sumelic true, but this is still a good answer because CBS morning news wouldn't be using that phrase if it weren't for Lincoln – RaceYouAnytime Apr 30 '17 at 04:05
-
6@RaceYouAnytime Evidence for that assertion? You may as well say that Lincoln wouldn't have used it if it hadn't been for the Bible. It doesn't really mean anything. – user207421 Apr 30 '17 at 05:00
-
9@EJP I don't have direct evidence of why CBS really does anything, but the phrase "a house divided against itself" is well-known or at least has been heard by most people who grew up in the U.S. in an American history context. They would be less likely to have read it in the Bible. Then a news station uses the structure in a piece about division in U.S. politics, with direct reference to the presidency. Keep in mind the producers or copywriters who would have written that would be much more interested in American history than Biblical trivia. – RaceYouAnytime Apr 30 '17 at 05:07
-
@Race Granted I did not grow up in the US, but “a house divided against itself” is not well-known to me. I recognise it, but I wouldn’t think of it as more well-known than the Bible verse. “A nation divided”, on the other hand, is extremely familiar and idiomatic, just like “a nation united” and “the people united” are (the latter being—to me—a more recognisable allusion). There may be an element of allusion in it, particularly given the circumstances here, but the phrase itself is so common that there may also be no intentional allusion at all. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Apr 30 '17 at 19:22
-
@JanusBahsJacquet if you have sources that indicate that the term's ongoing use is independent of Lincoln, and you posted that as an answer, I'd upvote it. This is just how I see it as someone who heard the quotes in grade school. – RaceYouAnytime Apr 30 '17 at 19:37
-
10For reference, it's in Matthew 12:25: "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" And Mark 3:25: "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." (KJV translation.) Interestingly, in context, the "house" in question is Satan's house. – Nate Eldredge May 01 '17 at 00:58
-
4@sumelic: Certainly such phrases existed before the Gettysburg Address -- to wit, the famous use by Lincoln was in 1858, five years before Gettysburg. – hmakholm left over Monica May 01 '17 at 11:49
26
The adjective preceding the noun is a general rule of English; however, it is not the only location. It is possible to emphasize (some) adjectives by placing the after the noun. Example: "A tiger, large and menacing, crept through the jungle." The alternate sentence, "A large and menacing tiger crept through the jungle," doesn't emphasize the qualities of being large or menacing.
ttw
- 545
-
16But there is more about this. Neither A tiger large crept through the jungle nor A tiger menacing crept through the jungle would be acceptable, yet a nation divided is. I suspect that your sentence is rather an example of a parenthetic expression than a post-posed adjective. – Schmuddi Apr 30 '17 at 18:02
-
1If I were to write the above 'unacceptable' examples as poetry, it would be fine because the enjambment is cool and, well, poetic license rules: "A tiger large / crept through / the jungle green." – IconDaemon May 01 '17 at 14:28
-
The poetry example is good, but it requires that both "tiger large" and "jungle green." The reverse "large tiger" and "green jungle" is possible but merely descriptive rather than evocative. A "tiger larger" would not match well with "green jungle" (but not wrong, just not very stylish) as would the "large tiger" and "jungle green" also. – ttw May 01 '17 at 16:17
-
If StoneyB is right about the inspiration being Lincoln's "A house divided against itself cannot stand" quote, then divided isn't a regular adjective, but rather the start of an adjectival phrase (or possibly an gerund phrase, depending on exactly how it's read). "A house (that is) divided against itself cannot stand." And in that case, we need neither commas nor parentheses, as we do in "a tiger, large and menacing". In "A Nation Divided", the rest of the phrase is dropped, but the order (necessary in the original, odd here) remains. – Ray May 02 '17 at 01:45
4
Those two headlines give me different expectations for what the content will be about.
A Nation Divided I expect to tell me about the process leading to the division, but not necessarily what the end result will look like.
A Divided Nation I expect to tell me about the state of this divided nation, but not necessarily how it got there.
It is of course possible that the content will cover both the process and the end result, since they are obviously related, in which case I would find either headline to be suitable.
kasperd
- 287
1
There are some adjectives that follow the noun in English. But in this case, haven't we just got a hidden relative clause. "A nation [that is] divided." Similarly with Lincoln "A house [that is] divided against itself cannot stand."
recf
- 11
-
1I don't know that it is so much ellipsis as it is emphasis. I could be wrong, however. – Dog Lover Apr 30 '17 at 23:12
-
I feel like that just moves the location of the issue: if this is the proper analysis, why is it that "a nation that is divided" is commonly simplified to "a nation divided" but e.g. "a nation that is diverse" is not commonly simplified to "a nation diverse"? – herisson May 01 '17 at 02:39
-
This is really the best answer. Other answers may approach things from a more academic direction, but this does a better job of actually explaining it in a clear and practical way. – Panzercrisis May 01 '17 at 14:15
1
Since 'Divided' can either be a verb in past participle form (as used in passive clauses) or an adjective (quote from @bdsl - thanks for clarifying the distinction for me in the comments below), my impression is that "A Nation Divided", with the emphasis on the "Divided", might be referring to the verb form - the action of having been divided - more of an emphasis on the action and less on the object of the division - and with connotations of a temporary state or divided with regards to a certain issue or a division that has happened recently, whereas "A Divided Nation" sounds like the adjective form and would seem to be projecting the idea of some kind of permanence, irreconcilability or essence.
nzn
- 181
-
When you say 'active' and 'passive', it seams like you mean 'verb' and 'adjective'. 'Divided' can either be a verb in past participle form (as used in passive clauses) or an adjective. – bdsl May 01 '17 at 09:55
-
0
I am no expert on English, but here are my (informal) thoughts:
It is typical of the media or the news agencies to twist sentences to get catchy titles.
- A Divided Nation: The whole thing put together is a phrase that behaves like a Noun. The emphasis is on the nation, and the word divided is a qualifier for the same.
- A Nation Divided: The whole thing put together is sort of a sentence by itself. There is a object and a verb. And the emphasis is on the division that happened.
If you want a news article, then the second thing makes more sense. You are willing to report an event, not describe the nation.
-
Isn't Nation in the second sentence an object rather than a subject? It seems to me like a passive clause, which could have 'by' added to it, e.g. 'A Nation Divided by some serious disagremeents'. – bdsl May 01 '17 at 09:53
-
0
I think the answer is that "A Nation Divided" uses the past participle form of the verb "to divide," implying an actor or force that is responsible for the division (e.g. "A Nation Divided by Ideology"). This grammar form is somewhat archaic, and can certainly be found in the King James Bible as well as Shakespeare ("A house divided"). Converting "Divided" to an adjective placed in front of "Nation" reduces the amount and type of information the headline conveys.
This is also a great example that news headlines aren't really governed by the same grammatical rules as is typical written English.
DaveRoss
- 1