Adjective Order in Pipe Descriptions

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

132 Fresh Peterson Pipes
24 Fresh Chacom Pipes
4 Fresh Dirk Heinemann Pipes
17 Fresh Estate Pipes
24 Fresh Winslow Pipes

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

SBC

Lifer
Oct 6, 2021
1,512
7,224
NE Wisconsin
I guess that the stem is a male component of the pipe much in the same way a strap on is.

Also, for the record, and completely off topic, while it doesn’t offend my delicate sensibilities, I take issue with the whole Roman idea of male and/or female designation, or rather more properly “penetrator” and “penetrated”. Not because of the forms or functions of the parts involved, but how they have been co-opted by a patriarchal centred power discourse.

Broseph, Gen. 1:27 was penned long before Romulus sucked a wolf's tit.

Rome perverted and deviated from the good design -- so have we all to one degree or another -- but the alternative to all the deviations is the good design, not another deviation.

When people experience husbands and fathers like the Husband and Father -- like I have reason to think that your lucky family does -- they love it and would want nothing else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canucklehead

Ahi Ka

Lurker
Feb 25, 2020
6,463
31,333
Aotearoa (New Zealand)
My understanding of the whole penetrator/penetrated power dynamic is pretty much limited to St Paul’s critique of the teaching pedagogy which took advantage of one’s position of power.

I’m on board with what SBC just wrote.

However what I am finding most confusing is the superior screw fit tenon perfected by the infallible Lee.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cosmicfolklore
Broseph, Gen. 1:27 was penned long before Romulus sucked a wolf's tit.

Rome perverted and deviated from the good design -- so have we all to one degree or another -- but the alternative to all the deviations is the good design, not another deviation.

When people experience husbands and fathers like the Husband and Father -- like I have reason to think that your lucky family does -- they love it and would want nothing else.
Hmmmm... Hebrew has noun genders too. Also, Genesis was penned approximately 500-600BC (according to most Biblical scholars), which would have been about the same time as the wolf tit... maybe a little before, if you believe the Roman calendar.

edit: Arabic has noun genders too. English was the first language devoid of noun genders.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ahi Ka

Ahi Ka

Lurker
Feb 25, 2020
6,463
31,333
Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Hmmmm... Hebrew has noun genders too. Also, Genesis was penned approximately 500-600BC (according to most Biblical scholars), which would have been about the same time as the wolf tit... maybe a little before, if you believe the Roman calendar.
Off topic (again)…but something I love about the Māori language is how it doesn’t use gender but relationship.

So something is referred to as either neutral (same level or outside of language device), greater (more enduring, necessary or prior to you), or lesser (not in derogatory sense, more like dependence eg: your children, or something which you possess or care for).

As a Spanish speaker, I have found this un-gendered ordering of the world refreshing and have begun to appreciate the nuances in where Māori language devices have been deliberately flipped to highlight certain people or instances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmicfolklore

SBC

Lifer
Oct 6, 2021
1,512
7,224
NE Wisconsin
However what I am finding most confusing is the superior screw fit tenon perfected by the infallible Lee.

I never knew that Lee got so much love before coming to the forum. I'm curious to get one now.
I have a few screw tenons in my loaner-pipe box ... an old KW Drinkless and a couple Grabows ... I hate them less than I used to.
What makes Lees better?

Genesis was penned approximately 500-600BC (according to most Biblical scholars)

Yeah I'm among those Philistines who actually accept that Moses wrote it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canucklehead
Off topic (again)…but something I love about the Māori language is how it doesn’t use gender but relationship.

So something is referred to as either neutral (same level or outside of language device), greater (more enduring, necessary or prior to you), or lesser (not in derogatory sense, more like dependence eg: your children, or something which you possess or care for).

As a Spanish speaker, I have found this un-gendered ordering of the world refreshing and have begun to appreciate the nuances in where Māori language devices have been deliberately flipped to highlight certain people or instances.
I think that languages with noun genders also have cultures that do not put the same connotations on male verses female that the Germanic ones do. It was in college when I first learned that women wanted sex at least as much, if not sometimes more than men do. But, as a gentlemen, we are led to believe that women do not. I don't think that cultures with noun genders have that same gentlemanly stigma. And, maybe having this stigma causes problems in our society... just maybe.
Honestly, maybe the perception that if left to their own desires women would be as ravenous about sex as men, is a healthier way to look at society, than to slut shame. But, I progress to digress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ahi Ka

Winnipeger

Lifer
Sep 9, 2022
1,287
9,665
Winnipeg
I'm with you on metal culture involving many effeminate elements and then billing it as hyper-masculine. It's a head-scratcher.
One (maybe the most) important function of Art (of which Metal is one example) is the subversion of dominant cultural norms, which serves many pragmatic functions, not the least of which is to remind us that said norms are not pre-ordained, but are mere historical contingencies. Highly conservative and reactionary cultures which prize the status quo above all else lack resiliency in the face of inevitable change. (Look at what's happening in Iran right now.) Artists remind us, through androgyny, for example, that the emperor — in the guise of the dominant mainstream culture — has no clothes. It's not really a head scratcher. When musicians wear their hair long and don makeup and high-heeled boots, they're playing an important role in maintaining the vitality of society. Creative destruction is necessary in order for change and growth to occur. This is part of Nature, of which human civilization is a single flower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbmoehl

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
5,490
13,885
As lateral as this thread might be, it doesn't hold a candle to why millions of people care what someone who is really good at playing with a ball for example, or who makes a living pretending to be someone other than who they are, thinks about world affairs, the human condition, or anything other than their odd specialty.

Because being able to hit a thrown sphere (for example) 4 times out of ten vs. 3 times out of ten makes their views more valid, somehow? Or being able to morph into someone else more convincingly when a camera is running gives them perspective and wisdom?

I understand celebrity, just not how society determines who is worthy of it.
 

LotusEater

Lifer
Apr 16, 2021
4,052
55,563
Kansas City Missouri
Most native English speakers know subconsciously (and few native English speakers know consciously) that adjectives are ordered as follows:

(1) Opinion
(2) Size
(3/4) Age or Shape (these are interchangeable, on a case by case basis)
(5) Color
(6) Origin
(7) Material
(8) Purpose

This isn't an original observation -- it's a well established norm, and you can read about it elsewhere.

You may not give it any thought, but you'd sense that something were out of whack if I referred to an "American blue old big truck," or to a "wheat golden expansive lovely field."

Just how this norm applies to pipe descriptions is not always obvious, though. For instance:
  • Where does brand fit into this?

  • Should we lump "finish" with "color"?

  • How do we classify such meerschaum descriptions as "lion" or "lattice"?

  • And does "shape" here apply to "pipe shape" (billiard, freehand, bulldog) or to bend (straight, quarter bent, half bent) or to length (nose warmer, long-shanked)?
    Or for that matter, to whether or not the pipe is a "sitter"?
    Or to such additional proportions as "chubby" or "angular"?
We shouldn't equivocate between "shape" and "shape," here -- in pipe culture, we use "billiard" substantively, in a way which is parallel to "pipe," not in a way which is parallel to "oval."

Neither should we just assume that a pipe description follows the English norm: it may turn out that pipe culture has unwittingly cultivated its own norm. And in fact this seems to be the case: for example, it seems that we commonly mention origin (country, brand, and line) after opinion, size, and age, but before further physical description. So, we need not so much a proposal as an observation.

Towards that end, I think that I observe the following order of description in pipe culture:
  1. Opinion (e.g. nice, masculine)
  2. Size (e.g. large, little)
  3. Age (e.g. old, antique)
  4. Country (e.g. Danish, French)
  5. Brand (e.g. Stanwell, Ropp)
  6. Line (e.g. Golden, Vintage)
  7. Color (e.g. dark, red)
  8. Finish (e.g. sandblast, rusticated)
  9. Proportional Comment (e.g. chubby, angular)
  10. Length (e.g. nose-warmer, long-shanked)
  11. Bend (e.g. straight, quarter-bent)
  12. Meerschaum Design (e.g. lion, lattice)
  13. Shape (e.g. billiard, freehand)
  14. Secondary Material (e.g. meerschaum-lined)
  15. Primary Material (e.g. briar, meerschaum)
  16. Mount (e.g. military mount, spigot)
  17. Final Substantive (e.g. sitter, churchwarden)
NOTE:
The stem description should not be included in the above, but rather annexed to the end with a prepositional phrase, e.g. "with bakelite saddle stem." You'll notice that within that phrase, material and shape seem to be out of order, but this is only because we use a term like "saddle stem" substantively rather than adjectivaly in pipe culture.

NOTE:
Obviously, some of these categories are not applicable to some pipes. And even when many categories are applicable, no single pipe description could include all of these parts without sounding extremely awkward. This list is not meant to enumerate everything which should be included in any given pipe description. Rather, it's meant to order whichever parts are included, in any given case.
Sadly I have thought about this too although not nearly to the extent you have. For what it’s worth I think you are spot on with the order of adjectives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBC

UB 40

Lifer
Jul 7, 2022
1,260
9,450
61
Cologne/ Germany
nahbesprechung.net
Most native English speakers know subconsciously (and few native English speakers know consciously) that adjectives are ordered as follows:

(1) Opinion
(2) Size
(3/4) Age or Shape (these are interchangeable, on a case by case basis)
(5) Color
(6) Origin
(7) Material
(8) Purpose

This isn't an original observation -- it's a well established norm, and you can read about it elsewhere.

You may not give it any thought, but you'd sense that something were out of whack if I referred to an "American blue old big truck," or to a "wheat golden expansive lovely field."

Just how this norm applies to pipe descriptions is not always obvious, though. For instance:
  • Where does brand fit into this?

  • Should we lump "finish" with "color"?

  • How do we classify such meerschaum descriptions as "lion" or "lattice"?

  • And does "shape" here apply to "pipe shape" (billiard, freehand, bulldog) or to bend (straight, quarter bent, half bent) or to length (nose warmer, long-shanked)?
    Or for that matter, to whether or not the pipe is a "sitter"?
    Or to such additional proportions as "chubby" or "angular"?
We shouldn't equivocate between "shape" and "shape," here -- in pipe culture, we use "billiard" substantively, in a way which is parallel to "pipe," not in a way which is parallel to "oval."

Neither should we just assume that a pipe description follows the English norm: it may turn out that pipe culture has unwittingly cultivated its own norm. And in fact this seems to be the case: for example, it seems that we commonly mention origin (country, brand, and line) after opinion, size, and age, but before further physical description. So, we need not so much a proposal as an observation.

Towards that end, I think that I observe the following order of description in pipe culture:
  1. Opinion (e.g. nice, masculine)
  2. Size (e.g. large, little)
  3. Age (e.g. old, antique)
  4. Country (e.g. Danish, French)
  5. Brand (e.g. Stanwell, Ropp)
  6. Line (e.g. Golden, Vintage)
  7. Color (e.g. dark, red)
  8. Finish (e.g. sandblast, rusticated)
  9. Proportional Comment (e.g. chubby, angular)
  10. Length (e.g. nose-warmer, long-shanked)
  11. Bend (e.g. straight, quarter-bent)
  12. Meerschaum Design (e.g. lion, lattice)
  13. Shape (e.g. billiard, freehand)
  14. Secondary Material (e.g. meerschaum-lined)
  15. Primary Material (e.g. briar, meerschaum)
  16. Mount (e.g. military mount, spigot)
  17. Final Substantive (e.g. sitter, churchwarden)
NOTE:
The stem description should not be included in the above, but rather annexed to the end with a prepositional phrase, e.g. "with bakelite saddle stem." You'll notice that within that phrase, material and shape seem to be out of order, but this is only because we use a term like "saddle stem" substantively rather than adjectivaly in pipe culture.

NOTE:
Obviously, some of these categories are not applicable to some pipes. And even when many categories are applicable, no single pipe description could include all of these parts without sounding extremely awkward. This list is not meant to enumerate everything which should be included in any given pipe description. Rather, it's meant to order whichever parts are included, in any given case.
Where to put the “best smoker”/ “worst smoker” reputation? Does it really fit in opinion? Or is it a category in it’s own right?
 

UB 40

Lifer
Jul 7, 2022
1,260
9,450
61
Cologne/ Germany
nahbesprechung.net
@Ahi Ka and @cosmicfolklore “I take issue with the whole Roman idea of male and/or female designation, or rather more properly “penetrator” and “penetrated”.“

I suggest not to mix up the things further, the penetrator penetrated idea wasn’t a Roman idea, it was Freuds Interpretation.

And Freud didn’t do the linguistic science a big favour with his sexuality centred approach to language. And I doubt that he talked to any surrealist artist if he could interpret her pictures in that one way. Always on cocaine he just talked a little to much, I think. He himself revealed the issues of his ideas in his words „Sometimes a pipe is only a pipe“.

When it comes to pioneering psychology I nevertheless admire him a lot. His new approach to Psyche took others like his disciples Reich and Jung to some height.

Different grammatical gender and more than only three, in some native African languages you can find up to 20, are common to a lot of languages.

Unfortunately the linguistic discussion is nowadays overwhelming abused by transgender ideas of how language has to work.

I won’t mix up the grammar gender which are d also indicated in English when it comes to he, she it, with association of a pipe or stem is female. It’s barely a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ahi Ka
Status
Not open for further replies.