7805540

After reading your entire comment and thinking it through, I now see where the problem is. You use "toy", a noun, like it is an adjective:
.

If they are coordinate adjectives, it should be:
"toy, white unicorn" ... although that looks odd, maybe that is the way I should have written it?

.
To clear that up, let's start with your question:
.

Assuming "3" really is the best, what is the difference between it and "toy white unicorn"?

The difference is that "old" and "yellow" are both adjectives, while "toy" is a noun. An adjective can modify a noun, a noun can modify another noun, even two adjectives can modify each other if the modified adjective is used like a noun. But a noun can never modify an adjective.

An adjective that modifies a noun: "The unicorn is white."

Another adjective that modifies a noun: "The blue is bright." (Note here how the word "blue" can also be a noun.)

A noun that modifies another noun: "The unicorn is a toy."

Two adjectives modifying each other: "The old (one) is yellow." or "The yellow (one) is old."

The last two examples work because the adjective is treated like a noun. You could shorten "The old /yellow bird" with "The Old" or "The Yellow". That is, I think, only part of older literature anymore and not often used nowadays and I can't give examples, but if you look out for that, you can find it in some works.
To illustrate that better and make it easier to understand, you can add the word "one" to it: "The Old One" or "The Yellow One". Here and in the sentences above, both "old" and "yellow" modify "one". Which means, they modify "bird", because "one" refers to the "bird". However, since "bird" is not included and only hinted at, the two adjectives also modify each other, which becomes clear if you say "The old is yellow." or "The yellow is old.". The modifying adjective in both cases still refers to the bird, because "old" and "yellow" substitute "bird" here, but it also refers to the modified adjective, because the "bird" is never mentioned. In these sentences, the modifying adjective modifies both the noun and the other adjective at the same time.
This is how two adjectives can modify each other.

Now, going back to a noun that modifies another noun, you can say "The unicorn is a toy.". Then "toy" modifies "unicorn", to explain that the unicorn is not real, just a toy figure. This is how the modification of a noun by another noun works.

So, to sum it up, a noun can be modified by an adjective or by another noun. Or two adjectives can modify each other, however, only if they are treated like nouns by hinting at a noun (one). Now, adjectives exist to modify, or describe, a noun. A noun can do the same with another noun, however, that isn't primarily what a noun exists for. It's only something that works in some cases, but modification is not a noun's primary purpose.

It is the primary purpose of an adjective to modify and describe, but not the primary purpose of a noun.

Therefore, an adjective can always modify a noun, but a noun can never modify an adjective.

7809826
Thank you!

1. Your further thoughts led me to look up "Noun Modifiers" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct (nouns used as adjectives). IF toy is considered a noun rather than an adjective--> then maybe this is the answer:

Rule 6: We place noun modifiers after adjectives but before the nouns they modify in a sentence.
We have many productive team members working on this project.
Team is used as a noun modifier to modify the noun members and comes after the adjective productive. (Source)

Thus if "toy" is a noun, then "toy white unicorn" wouldn't work, and it should be "white (ADJ) toy (NOUN) unicorn (NOUN)"

If that is the situation, then you are correct that "toy white unicorn" does not work!

Side Note... interestingly:

Noun adjuncts can also be strung together in a longer sequence preceding the final noun, with each added noun modifying the noun which follows it, in effect creating a multiple-word noun adjunct which modifies the following noun (e.g. "chicken soup bowl", in which "chicken" modifies "soup" and "chicken soup" modifies "bowl"). There is no theoretical limit to the number of noun adjuncts which can be added before a noun, and very long constructions are occasionally seen, for example "Dawlish pub car park cliff plunge man rescued", in which "pub", "car park", "cliff", and "plunge" are all noun adjuncts....

1b. Further, although a double-noun modifier could work (producer-director is given as an example HERE), I see no evidence of a noun-adjective modifier, so I believe you are correct about that as well.

2. However, "Toy" can be an adjective: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/toy (see noun and adjective options).

Since "toy" is listed as an adjective, that raises the question--what makes "toy" an "adjective" as opposed to a noun used like an adjective? Because if "toy" is an adjective in my sentence rather than a noun, then the coordinate adjectival phrase: "toy, white unicorn" should still suffice.

The test for coordinate adjectives suggested HERE (see also) indicates we should conduct two tests--the first test is easily passed. The second test involves using "and" to see if a sentence still makes sense. In this situation: "toy and white unicorn". ... I am concerned my sentence may not pass that second test but am not completely sure. The second source cited in this paragraph explicitly has an example that "red fountain pen" is a descriptive adjective plus a compound noun because red is modifying "fountain pen" rather than "red" and "fountain" being coordinating adjectives before the noun of "pen".

If we wrote "white toy unicorn", like you initially suggested, that would turn "toy unicorn" into a compound noun--toy wouldn't be used as an adjective in that construction. But, I don't think it's necessary for "toy" to become a noun since it can be an adjective. This may be what the point turns on. Can "toy" be an adjective in this sentence, or does it need to be a noun as you argue: ""toy" modifies "unicorn", to explain that the unicorn is not real, just a toy figure". If it must be a noun, then you're right.

Toy is still modifying "unicorn", rather than "white" in that sentence, so I think it works, although it does sound a bit odd--which means that the good-sounding but odd looking: "toy, white unicorn" may be acceptable.

Ultimately, I was wrong in not including the comma in my original, but adding the comma fixes it even though it is a non-standard word-choice.

Once again, this has been an interesting project!

7805351 7805540
For what it's worth, many style guides over here (the UK) go for what I think is a very sensible approach: follow convention unless it's easier to understand if you don't. Clarity > strict rules. (Or unless you're doing it for effect, of course!) As far as FF150 is concerned, I'm not particularly interested in being too finnicky. If it's obvious what you mean, I'll probably be okay with it.

It's occasionally suggested that American English makes more of the actual rules -- and in some cases that seems to be true: we in Britain don't use the subjunctive as much (in fact, it can seem stilted and overly formal in colloquial writing) and we don't mind so much whether writers use "that" or "which"; "the cat which crossed the road was white", without any commas, is generally fine in BrE, though "that" is more common and what I'd generally use.

7811386
Thank you!

7805540
I just wanted to say that

[5]They saw a yellow bird [that was] old in the garden.

Is really neat because:

They saw a yellow bird, old in the garden.

Like the bird's presence was old in the garden. As if it had died in the garden, long ago.

Also, for what it's worth...
"Sprout picked up the white unicorn toy," and "Sprout picked up the white, toy unicorn," are the ways I would prefer to read. "Sprout picked up the toy, white unicorn" seems like it's trying to be: "Sprout picked up the toy—a white unicorn."

Edit:
Or you could just say, "Sprout picked up the white unicorn."

7804546
Excuse me for taking so long to respond to you here. I've been intending to do it for a while now.

why the substance on his hooves and his horn, which I suppose is a protective substance to beware a birthing mother from getting injured by the sharp horn of a unicorn baby and the hard hooves, is described as "feathers".

It's an equestrian term:
https://thebarngoddesschronicles.com/2022/02/17/horsefeathers-are-real/

I love the horror genre and this is a very clever way of writing one by utilizing a pony's personal fear, so this is my favourite entry of this month.

Thank you for the praise.

7809942

Thus if "toy" is a noun, then "toy white unicorn" wouldn't work, and it should be "white (ADJ) toy (NOUN) unicorn (NOUN)"

If that is the situation, then you are correct that "toy white unicorn" does not work!

You got it! That is exactly what I mean. Now you're understanding it.

Although.....
.

2. However, "Toy" can be an adjective: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/toy (see noun and adjective options).

.....this confused you a little again here. Albeit "toy" is listed in the section "adjective" on this site, what the site actually means is that "toy" is used like an adjective. It's not the most ideal way to explain it and authors who need to get the hang of all the grammar stuff could benefit from an elaboration, but the listing is not meant literal.
This site does not say that "toy" can be an adjective under certain circumstances, it only says that "toy" can be used like an adjective. In the same way as I described it in my previous comment, a noun can modify another noun and since the modifying noun is doing that, it is being used like an adjective on the noun that gets modified.

Therefore, everything that was said previously still goes and is still correct. It's not "toy, white unicorn", it's "white toy unicorn". The actual adjective comes first, then comes the modifying noun (that is used like an adjective) and as the last one comes the modified noun. Like the site you listed as a source explained and like you wrote down yourself:

Thus if "toy" is a noun, then "toy white unicorn" wouldn't work, and it should be "white (ADJ) toy (NOUN) unicorn (NOUN)"
.

The test for coordinate adjectives suggested HERE (see also) indicates we should conduct two tests--the first test is easily passed. The second test involves using "and" to see if a sentence still makes sense. In this situation: "toy and white unicorn". ... I am concerned my sentence may not pass that second test but am not completely sure.

You are correct about your sentence not passing the second test. And it does also not pass the first test. It is not possible to say:

"It is a white, toy unicorn."

or

"It is a white and toy unicorn."

That is, as explained above, because "toy" is not a real adjective, only used like an adjective in some situations.
Adjectives describe the characteristics of something or someone, e.g. the look, the color, the length, ect. or certain features. "Wide" and "swampy" are characteristics of the river delta. "White" is a characteristic of the toy unicorn. But "toy" is not a characteristic of the "unicorn. "Toy" does not describe a feature of the "unicorn", it only says what type of unicorn it is (artificial, not real), it's a classification, not a characteristic. That's why "toy" isn't a real adjective and why "white" and "toy" can neither be separated by a comma nor by a conjunction.
Therefore, "white toy unicorn" isn't a set of coordinate adjectives.

And it's not a set of cumulative adjectives, either. You can say "ruby red", as in, "The red (color) is like a ruby." or "The red (color) has the shade of a ruby.". That is because "ruby" is a noun that is used like an adjective and because "red", like all colors, is a noun and an adjective at the same time:

"The color red." (noun)

"The color is red." (adjective)

It's a case of a noun, that's used like an adjective, modifying an adjective. And that is characteristic for cumulative adjectives, an adjective (or a noun that is used like an adjective) modifying an adjective.
When you say "white toy unicorn", however, you instead have an adjective modifying a noun ("white toy" or "white unicorn") or a compound noun ("white toy unicorn" or "white unicorn toy"). Furthermore, as with coordinate adjectives, the word "toy" is not a real adjective and its look can therefore not be described in a more detailed way by "white" building on it like "ruby" builds on "red".
As such, it cannot be a set of cumulative adjectives, either.

What you actually have here with "white toy unicorn" is "a descriptive adjective plus a compound noun", just like you said and like "red fountain pen" is, as well. However, the noun "toy" can still be used in two different ways.
.

If we wrote "white toy unicorn", like you initially suggested, that would turn "toy unicorn" into a compound noun--toy wouldn't be used as an adjective in that construction. But, I don't think it's necessary for "toy" to become a noun since it can be an adjective. This may be what the point turns on. Can "toy" be an adjective in this sentence, or does it need to be a noun as you argue: ""toy" modifies "unicorn", to explain that the unicorn is not real, just a toy figure". If it must be a noun, then you're right.

It can be used as both. It can be used as what it actually is, a noun, by having "toy" and unicorn" form a compound noun ("The toy unicorn is white."), in which case the adjective "white" modifies the compound noun "toy unicorn", but "toy" does not modify "unicorn".
Or it can be used like an adjective by keeping "toy" and "unicorn" as separate nouns ("The unicorn is white and a toy."), in which case both the adjective "white" and the noun "toy" modify the noun "unicorn" because "toy" is used like an adjective. And this is, to go full circle and come back to the beginning of this comment, a case of a noun modifying another noun.

So, long explanation short, "toy" is always a noun, it might be used like an adjective in certain situations, but in the end, it always stays a noun. Think of it as the noun disguising as an adjective sometimes, because disguises and costume parties are fun.
.

Toy is still modifying "unicorn", rather than "white" in that sentence, so I think it works, although it does sound a bit odd--which means that the good-sounding but odd looking: "toy, white unicorn" may be acceptable.

A last note about this. How it sounds to you is how it feels to you. However, correct grammar isn't defined by feelings. It's defined by rules, which are based upon logic, while feelings are essentially chaos. Logical rules are objective, while feelings are subjective.
To figure out when your grammar is correct and when it isn't, you can't go by how you feel or how a sentence sounds to you personally. You need to read the rule and come to understand the logical principle behind it. Only then you will have the grammar correct in your writing.

7812817

Like the bird's presence was old in the garden. As if it had died in the garden, long ago.

The sentence sounds poetic the way you wrote it and I like that, but I don't understand what you mean with it. Of course you could say with that sentence that the yellow bird has become old in the garden, which would eventually imply that he died there, too. But as literal as that? If the bird has died in the garden, then how can the protagonists see it? Unless they saw the ghost of the bird. But I'm not sure if that is what you're going for.

7817030

Excuse me for taking so long to respond to you here. I've been intending to do it for a while now.

That's perfectly fine. I also needed some time to reply to the comments here.
.

It's an equestrian term:
https://thebarngoddesschronicles.com/2022/02/17/horsefeathers-are-real/

Wow. I didn't expect that. And they are called "fairy fingers" too, I like that, it's mystical. Would love to learn the origin behind that term.

7828214
I appreciate how you spent time thinking about this at length.

However:

"toy" is always a noun, it might be used like an adjective in certain situations, but in the end, it always stays a noun.

No.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toy

Different dictionaries are going to say different things. If your basis is the Oxford English Dictionary and you choose that as your lodestar and if it only uses toy as a noun and a verb (and if you dislike Webster's Dictionary as an inferior dictionary--which it probably is, but it IS an accepted dictionary), then I understand your point; however, Webster's dictionary holds that toy is an adjective with no qualifications.

I think it's time to draw a line under this one. As newspapers used to say when exchanges in letters columns went on for ages, "This correspondence is now closed."

Nothing will be deleted, but this thread is now locked.