🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov19.215659.4152@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.190026.937@almserv.uucp>, alufml@fnma.COM
|> (Francois-Michel Lang) writes:
|> > In French, certain articles can appear either
|> > (1) after the noun they modify, in which case
|> >     the adjective has its basic meaning, or
|> > (2) before the noun, in which case the sense
|> >     of the adjective is metaphorical.
|> > 
|> > E.g.,
|> > "un sale voleur" (adjective noun) = "a [morally] filthy thief"
|> > "un voleur sale" (noun adjective" = "a [physically] filthy thief"
|> > 
|> > Are there are examples of such behaviour in English?  It doesn't
|> > even have to involve a transfer of sense; just an adjective that
|> > can occur both pre-nominally and post-nominally would be good to see.
|> > The only example I can come up with is something like "the city proper".
|> 
|> There are some fossilized expressions of this sort in English:
|> 
|> 	knight errant
|> 	durance vile
|> 	Chicken Little
|> 
|> But these examples are true fossils; other nouns and adjectives cannot
|> be substituted, and the adjective cannot be compared.  In other words,
|> there is no _*knight peripatetic_ or _*musician errant_, and certainly
|> no _*durance vilest_.  _Proper_ is unusual, perhaps unique, in that it
|> is only postpositive in this usage and can be used after many other nouns
|> than _city_.  But even _proper_ cannot then be compared (_*city most
|> proper_).
|> 
|> --Leo Connolly

There are a few others, like surgeon general, attorney general, secretary
general, etc., which are relatively new coinages, so I don't think "fossil"
is quite the right word, but this certainly isn't a particularly productive
formation.
-- 
Rick Turkel           (___  ____ _  _  _  _  _     _  ___   _  _ _  ___
(rmt51@cas.org)           )    |  |  \  )  |/ \     |    |   |  \_)    |
(rmt51@cas.bitnet)       /     | _| __)/   | __)    | ___|_  | _( \    |
			Ein navi be`iro.            |