2

In section 9.3 Fusion of internal modifier and head, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 417) says:

(d) Modifiers denoting colour, provenance, and composition

[25] i Henrietta likes red shirts, and I like [blue].
ii Knut wanted the purple wallpaper, but I wanted [the mauve].
iii Henrietta likes Russian vodka, and I like [Polish].
iv Knut wanted the French caterers, but I wanted [the Italian].
v I prefer cotton shirts to [nylon].
vi Knut likes malt whisky, but I prefer [blended].

The NPs here are either bare or have a definite determiner; there is significant loss of acceptability when the determiner is indefinite:

[26] i ?Harvey bought a red shirt and I bought [a blue].
ii ?I bought some Chinese food rather than [some Indian].
iii ?I bought a cotton shirt rather than [a nylon].

In [26], does the acceptability increase if the determiner is removed as in [26']?

[26'] i Harvey bought a red shirt and I bought [blue].
ii I bought some Chinese food rather than [Indian].
iii I bought a cotton shirt rather than [nylon].

Here are some attested examples that might suggest [26'] i-iii do work.

For those who prefer their international cricket played with a red ball rather than white, the past six weeks have required a great deal of patience.
(The Guardian, Aug 2022)

Unlike the previous version, the new Messages and Contacts app icons do not use shadows and feature a white background rather than blue.
(Android Police, Oct 2022)

David
  • 12,625
JK2
  • 6,553

1 Answers1

1

Yes, it's more acceptable without the determiner.

If you use a determiner, you can sometimes append a pronoun to make it acceptable:

26i. Harvey bought a red shirt and I bought a blue one.
26iii. I bought a cotton shirt rather than a nylon one.

However, I don't think this works for mass nouns like "food" -- I can't think of a pronoun that can be put after "Indian" in 26ii.

Barmar
  • 20,741
  • 1
  • 38
  • 59