Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 August 9

= August 9 =

David Collenette
I just noticed that in the David Collenette article, and I would assume others, he is referred to as "a Canadian retired politician." Wouldn't that be better worded as "a retired Canadian politician."? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Adjective. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Canadian and retired are adjectives, so, while "retired Canadian" is the preferred order, it is in no way a required order. See adjective order. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, the list Dodger cited supports the original version. #6, origin, "Canadian".  #8, qualifier, "retired".  But, while "Canadian retired" is the preferred order, it is in no way required. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "retired" isn't a qualifier in the sense used in the list. A "retired politician" is not a distinct class of politician in the way that a "rocking chair" is a distinct class of chair. From a bit of messing about with what sounds idiomatic, I'd say it's roughly equivalent to "age" - "a beautiful retired politician", "a fat retired politician", but "a retired black politician", "a retired Canadian politician". Smurrayinchester 07:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Retired Canadian politician" is a tiny, tiny bit ambiguous. It leaves open the possibility that he hasn't retired from the (ig)noble profession in another country. Actually, now that I realize he's an interloper, "English-born Canadian retired politician" works better. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK this is making my brain hurt. In what variety of English is "Canadian retired politician" proper wording. It sounds very strange and somewhat discordant to me and the few others I showed it to. I changed it earlier but I did notice at the time that it could be confusing. So instead I changed it again. The first sentence could still be a bit ambiguous but it is clarified in the second. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Retired Canadian politician" implies that the gentleman could have retired from some other profession, such as teaching, and in his retirement became a politician. The alternative posed by the OP, "Canadian retired politician", describes him as firstly, Canadian, and secondly, as a retired politician. I'm assuming that the second meaning is appropriate for the individual, and it is therefore the correct version. Akld guy (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adjectives qualify their nouns.  So "retired Canadian politician" indicates someone who has retired from politics and has Canadian nationality.   Now, if there was a discussion about politicians from different countries who have retired from politics, "Canadian retired politician" might be the correct form. 92.23.52.160 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just thought that "Canadian politician (retired)" might work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by the original version. There is more of a difference between "retired politician" and "politician" than there is between "Canadian politician" and "politician".  Therefore the adjective "retired" is the most essential one, the "qualifier" in the language of Adjective, and it belongs next to the noun.  "Retired Canadian politician" just sounds weird, and "is a Canadian politician (retired)" is worse. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your original version, though slightly awkward-looking, makes more sense - because he's not a retired Canadian, he's a retired politician. He remains Canadian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man. Nobody "retires" from their nationality or citizenship.  Your argument might make a tad more sense if we were discussing "a former Canadian politician".  It is possible to be a former Canadian as well as a former politician, although nobody would ever take the "former" in "a former Canadian politician" to refer to anything but "politician" unless the context demanded a wider interpretation.  And even then, saying that someone is "a former Canadian" does a terrible injustice to the reader, who will undoubtedly be wanting to know not just what his nationality was but also what it is now. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ted Cruz did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ted Cruz is a former Canadian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. A former Canadian.  Not a "retired" Canadian.  Being a Canadian or any other nationality is not a profession or occupation from which one can retire.  One can relinquish one's citizenship, but one does not retire from it.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you interpret "retire". It actually means "to retreat". And there's no question Ted Cruz has retreated from Canada. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you considered retirement from the reference desks? That might be a retreat for you, but a definite treat for us.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Somebody has solved the problem by changing the article to "former Canadian politician". Or have they :)) Akld guy (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was the OP, me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, how about "is an English-born Canadian and a former (or retired) politician"? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been making fun of "former Italian prime minister" for so long, I was delighted when it appeared that India might get one (Sonia Gandhi being a former Italian). —Tamfang (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)