"Stewart Hunting Ancient" or "Ancient Hunting Stewart"? The grammar Nazi weighs in...

[MacGumerait]

I am no expert , but I think the noun is tartan . I believe all other words , terms and names are adjectives regardless of their order . For example , Stewart Hunting Muted tartan .. versus ... Hunting Muted Stewart tartan . Either way , Stewart , Hunting and Muted are adjectives of the tartan .

One way may sound better than the other , but I think tartan is the noun as opposed to Stewart . I know that the name " Stewart " is implied as a tartan but it is not a noun .

Just my friendly observation , I could be wrong .

[DryFly]

I think that the way we go about this is also related to the persons in the discourse. In other words, the words we use are for whom they are for.

Most members of this forum have sent in their box tops, received the decoder ring and know the secret handshake. If I say Stewart Hunting Ancient, we know what that means. We have done our homework because we have an interest. The tartans are listed/described in a classifacatory manner.

However, if the subject comes up in general conversation, I would refer to it as Hunting Stewart in ancient colors. In standard english, it makes more sense.

If, in casual conversation someone asks about my millitary unit I start by simply saying "Infantry". That is usually enough. When talking with a person with prior experience I would say A 1st of the 170th, 29 ID (light). In each case, the people in the discourse would have what they need/desire and the conversation would continue from there.

For you old Fred Flintstone fans I would say......... Ak akka Dak! (come on, a few of you know the reply)

[Chas]

Dak Daka Ack

[WillowEstate]

I am no expert , but I think the noun is tartan . I believe all other words , terms and names are adjectives regardless of their order . For example , Stewart Hunting Muted tartan .. versus ... Hunting Muted Stewart tartan . Either way , Stewart , Hunting and Muted are adjectives of the tartan .

One way may sound better than the other , but I think tartan is the noun as opposed to Stewart . I know that the name " Stewart " is implied as a tartan but it is not a noun .

Just my friendly observation , I could be wrong .

I think you have a point; in fact, to use your example, I think "Stewart" would be a possessive adjectival noun, which supports your point.

But then Great Britain, the United States of America and Australia are, indeed, three countries separated by a common language!

[Barb T]

Yup, good point. The noun "tartan" is implied - so the word "Stewart" stands in for the implied noun in the way we use it in a sentence.

[HarveyH]

I can't agree with the possessive line of argument. Tartan is a collective noun for lots of individual tartans but the individual tartans all have names which are proper nouns and I can't really see them as possessive determiners - you would not usually say Stewart's tartan (a possessive) but rather the tartan called Stewart ( a name).

This whole thread has been interesting to a person of a linguistic bent - not least because it is clear that the legal definition of both a tartan and of a tartan name which has now been established in law for Scotland for all the "registered" tartans is simply not the way that the names of the tartans are being considered or used in the language (certainly by Barb and others in this exchange). (For those who want to look, the link to the act is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2008/7/contents).

It will be interesting to see what impact the legal definition has on, at least, British english in the years to come. I am fairly certain that over time in Scotland, the weavers will conform to the proper nouns which are now the names of the tartans in the register, simply so that they all know that they are referring to the same Sett.

It will be interesting to see if usage follows.

For myself, if I follow the "adjective" followed by "tartan name" as the noun, my kilts would be:

Modern Grant
Ancient Grant Hunting
Muted Grant
Isle of Skye

But I don't really mind as long as we can at least be sure we are speaking about the same thing - although this exchange has made me think that I am going to stick with a longer form of "Grant in muted colours"and "Grant Hunting in ancient colours".

Having said all of this, I think we are still going to refer to "Buchanan Old Sett" rather than "Buchanan#4" as it appears to be called in the register. There has to be some poetry and romance in all of this.

[Kilted Cole]

Just my two bits....For some of us, it may be out of habbit..... For example...military paperwork...last name first followed by first and middle enitial....I find myself doing the same with DVD's and my books. I see how it could get under some folks skins.....but for some I suppose its just second nature. But all and all to each their own.

[Macman]

The very first tartan I ever wore (over forty years ago) was called "Hunting Stewart" by the regiment and everyone in it, so I guess that I am pre-disposed to that method of referring to tartan.

[creagdhubh]

To be honest, I've written and said it several different ways, but I rather like Barb's manner of grammatical structure.

Let's give it a try:

Reproduction Macpherson
Weathered Macpherson
Dress Macpherson
Ancient Dress Macpherson
Red Macpherson
Ancient Red Macpherson
Hunting Macpherson
Ancient Hunting Macpherson
Muted Macpherson

[davidlpope]

One additional complexity:

For those clans who have an "Ancient", "Old", or "Old Sett" tartan (denoting a different sett, as opposed to the "Ancient" or "Old Colors" color scheme) it would be nice not to add confusion by the naming system, i.e. "Ancient Ancient MacMillan"...





Not to be confused with...




You with me, MacLL?