More about adjective order - some are more noun-y than others

Consider the phenomenology of it: you can take two random adjectives that apply to the same kind of noun and there is always a sense of which comes first. If you ask me rationally: which comes first: 'kind' or 'athletic' I would not know until I tried to say it: a kind athletic person. Sometimes there is a strong sense of order and sometimes a weaker one. For example, I find the relation between "fragrant" and "red" to be fainter than that between "big" and "red". But the sense of order is always there.
Also, it feels like for any pair of adjectives, one will be more "nouny" than the other. So we try "fragrant redness" and "red fragrance". I note that the former could be, but that the latter could not be. Let's try another: kind/old becomes a "kind oldness" or an "old kindness". Ignoring the pun, the latter it is not possible; whereas the former would be stated as a "kind elder". Is "old" more nouny than "kind"? Why is "red" more nouny than "fragrant" and much more nouny than "big"? Or, using the other explanation: a redness could be big but a bigness cannot be red.

For whatever reason this order of adjectives is there in our head - a direct linear ordering. Coming back to the idea that some last-letter/first-letter combos are easier to say than others, there would be evidence for it if we took random words from different adjective categories - note the order taken between one of each, and note the ease of speaking for it.

Another (weird) hypothesis about adjective order

Thinking a bit desperately about "big red" working but "red big" not working, I am noticing how the "joint" between the words is "gr" in the first case and "db" in the second - it is no wonder one order sounds better than the other.

So suppose that adjective order was determined by fluidity at the word-word joints. Since there is a more or less real established order of adjectives types, this could only be the case if the words in those category types typically had endings and beginnings that tend to lock together in a tongue pleasing way.

Probably more nonsense. But then I am thinking about "kind erudite" versus "erudite kind" and what possible general rule could explain the very distinct sense that the first is correct and the second is not? It would have to be something about the muscles engaged.

Flowers

A hyopothesis about adjective order

It reflects the subset ordering of the categories of the words. What is important is what the categories can apply to, as opposed to which value from the category is being spoken of:

 Ah Ha! I have been looking for an example of where adjective order is not strongly felt. How about "a red fragrant flower" versus a "a fragrant red flower"?

NOTE: THIS REALLY DOES NOT WORK: the sweet red apple. The taste-able does not contain the visible. Could it have something to do with "big" and "sweet" being more subjective than "red"? I continue to be at a loss.

Adjective order is puzzling

It truly is. Joe and I spent an hour or so trying to figure it out. In the end it remains unclear if we just learn things in an order, like a "sweet red candy" but not a "red sweet candy" or whether there is a logic behind it. I prefer to believe there is - I just haven't figured it out.
In the case of 'sweet', it modifies nouns in the category of thing in my mouth. Those are entirely within the applicability range of red/not_red. So it is not about what is true or false, rather about how "sweet" applies to a subset of what "red/not_red" applies to.

Barbara and Peter ~1980 1982

Aug22 Flowers

Aug 14 Flowers

Juxtaposition - a most elementary of mental operations

I cannot get any further back in my mind than to the place where I posit an entity by naming it or in some other fashion. And soon after that comes the idea of juxtaposing multiple entities, where I bring up several things in "my mind's eye". When I juxtapose two things, one of several events occurs: compatibility, alternation, or grouping. [Or sequencing.]

When I juxtapose two noun objects, they sit side by side
When I juxtapose two types of attribute - like red and square, they may form a composite attribute.
When I juxtapose two values of the same attribute - like red and blue or circular and square, they cannot merge and, at best, split a prior object into parts.

Some of the point here, is that your VARs that act as parents over a collection of children should be organized so they are one of the above: alternative, compatible, or groupable. Per what I have was saying about AODiagrams.

Les Fleurs du Jour

Context grabbing VARs -

I don't know if I have the gist of it but consider this AODiagram interpretation of some basics:

If Narwhal is using a concept tree whose nodes could be labeled as (parents of) compatible, group-able, or alternative children, then I could implement code that checks recently mentioned VARs to see if any are found under a parent labeled in one of those ways.
The purpose of this is to manage indefinite words that refer to context (eg 'it', 'both', 'compare', 'choose',...) . "It" and "both" refer to group-able entities. "Both" also refers to compatible entities. "Choose", "What is the difference" refer to alternative entities.

The Vatican should be coming out with a chatbot any day now

So you can talk to God, or maybe the voice of God.