• Member Since 23rd Jan, 2012
  • offline last seen Aug 30th, 2013

Sessalisk


Try not to take me too seriously. I am an idiot with a shitty sense of humour.

More Blog Posts13

  • 579 weeks
    The politics of animal tropes

    I've just reread Rudyard Kipling's Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.

    Now, Lord, don't get me wrong. I LOVED that story as a kid. I was rooting for the plucky young mongoose all the way. I WAS the mongoose! I'd punch out asshole cobras in my sleep if I could. Reading it as an adult, however, lets a lot of really troubling implications come to light.

    Read More

    8 comments · 917 views
  • 593 weeks
    Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

    Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc


    When Event A occurs, Event B will also always occur, therefore Event A causes Event B.

    Example A:

    Read More

    4 comments · 755 views
  • 594 weeks
    Argument from Antiquity and Appeal to Novelty

    Argument from Antiquity


    We have done A in the past, therefore we should always do A.




    Example A:
    Ida Praposar: I'm going to attempt to grow some genetically modified potatoes. They're cow-shaped when mature!
    Lojika McPhallussy: No one has ever attempted such a thing in the past. It's never going to work.

    Example B:

    Read More

    3 comments · 918 views
  • 594 weeks
    Appeal to Authority

    Appeal to Authority

    Authority X believes in A, therefore A must be true.



    Example A:
    Ida Praposar: I'm going to take a flight across the ocean from California to China. I've always been a bit nervous of flying over large bodies of water, since I'm always afraid that the plane will fall in and I'll drown.

    Read More

    0 comments · 508 views
  • 594 weeks
    Guilt by Association

    Guilt by Association

    Person X supports/does A and if you support/do A you're just like Person X, therefore you should not support/do A.


    Example A:
    Ida Praposar: I would like to enroll my son in a seminary.
    Lojika McPhallussy: Stalin attended a seminary as a child. Aren't you afraid your son will turn out like Stalin if he's put in one?

    Example B:

    Read More

    5 comments · 579 views
Dec
6th
2012

The noun adjunct, or why pegasi guards can suck it. · 10:40pm Dec 6th, 2012

Most of y'all are prolly already familiar with adjectives and nouns. Nouns are things like objects, or people, or ideas or whatever (bat, apple, friend, honour, so on and so forth). Adjectives are words that you use to describe nouns (pretty, awkward, formal, stupid). It's pretty simple stuff.

A noun adjunct, which some peeps call "attributive nouns", are pretty much just nouns that you can use to describe other nouns. In a nutshell, they're nouns that you use as adjectives.

For instance, when you have a pornstar fluffer, "fluffer" is the noun there, and "pornstar" is the adjective. Even though "pornstar" is usually used as a noun, you can use it as an adjective to describe the fluffer instead.

Other examples of noun adjuncts:

freedom fries <- "freedom" while not normally an adjective, is being used to modify the word "fries".

mother fucker <- The word "mother" here, specifies exactly what kind of people the fucker is fucking. Alternatively, the fucker could also be a mother who fucks, rather than someone who fucks mothers.

lemon pudding <- A lemon is usually a roundish and yellow fruit, but when combined with the word "pudding", it specifies the flavour. instead.

Noun adjuncts should usually be singular. (There are a few exceptions, like "arms", "customs", "sports", etcetera.) If you're wondering why this is, alls you gotta do is remember how adjectives work. Adjectives don't usually have singular or plural forms, except when used as adjectival nouns*, and when they do, their default form is pretty much singular by default. You don't have blacks hair or fats dogs or smellys socks. You have black hair, fat dogs, and smelly socks. And stop being so fucking lazy, and go do your laundry and take your dog for a walk already.

Most native-speakers will pick up on this rule automatically. Almost all the words in English are pluralized with an "s" or "es", so that means noun adjuncts will automatically sound unnatural when people add an s to the end (unless they're British, because British people are Satan). However, words that are pluralized irregularly, like "goose", "mouse" and, of course, "pegasus" don't get this natural bad grammar knee-jerk reaction. People who aren't aware of this rule will have "mice detectives", "geese families", and the very common "pegasi guards".

Don't do this. They are pegasus guards.

Just like you wouldn't pluralize an adjective, you wouldn't pluralize a noun adjunct. (Unless you're British. And even then, it is only for certain nouns.)

* That's the opposite of a noun adjunct, when an adjective is used as a noun instead (Greys, the good, the bad, the ugly).

----

Some helpful links in case you think I am pulling shit out of my ass, and other ones just in general:


Wikipedia

The English Club

Learn English (that's the name of the site; I'm not just being a douche)

English Stack Exchange
on when to use a possessive or a noun adjunct.

Report Sessalisk · 666 views ·
Comments ( 10 )

So... Why?

539536

Because my epeen is bigger than theirs. obvs

539547 ... Okay... So you working on another story?

I guess it was a good time for me to get it right, huh?

539556

Yup. It's about sheep in the Everfree Forest.

539565

Yes indeedy. What I should add on this post is, "INQUISITOR M GOT IT RIGHT, DUDES. WATCH AND LEARN."

539596

I'm on chapter 14 atm, but it's not going up on fimfic or anywhere else until I'm done writing it. I have lots of editing to do.

If you have some ponies guarding a bunch of pegasusususeseses, on another hoof, that's a legitimate use of 'pegasi guards'.

539633 Only if they guard all pegasusususeseses by default, surely? If they guard a specific group of pegasi, wouldn't they be the pegasi's guards?

Login or register to comment