# Syntax, \[adj\] \[insult\] vs. \[adj\] vs. \[insult\]
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 29, 2002, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527 "2002-12-29T19:21:45Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2002, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/1 "2002-12-29T19:21:45Z")
I’m wondering about why a certain phrasing is considered insulting.
If I were to refer to Polycarp as a Christain whacko, I would be insulting Polycarp. (I would also be deservedly hunted down and have privelages such as posting and cellular respiration revoked, but that’s another story). Would I be insulting all Christians?
Semantically, I don’t think so. If I believe that all Christains were whackos, then I would use them interchangably. In fact, I am referencing that Polycarp stands apart from Christians by being a whacko. So, why is [adjective] [insult] worse than [insult] or [adjective that’s synonomus with [insult] to speaker]?
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2002, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/2 "2002-12-29T19:37:33Z")
You are using “Christian” as a modifier for “whacko”. That can be taken two ways: You could be saying–let’s use Jack Chick instead of Polycarp–that Jack Chick is a Christian who happens to be a whacko, in which case it’s fairly clear that “Christian” is _not_ a subset of “whacko”, only that they intersect; but you could also be saying Jack Chick is a whacko who happens to be a Christian, which _could_ be taken as a statement that “Christian” _is_ a subset of “whacko” (although of course the second formulation doesn’t _have_ to be construed that way). If I describe someone as a “Christian Reconstructionist whacko”, you might well conclude–correctly–that I do indeed see “Christian Reconstructionist” as a subset of “whackos”, and that therefore there are no non-whacko Christian Reconstructionists (although there are numerous non-Christian Reconstructionist whackos; for example, Taliban whackos or Maoist whackos).
Thus, to my ear and eye at least, “atheist whacko” is potentially mildly objectionable in a way that “whacko atheist” _probably_ is not. I’d depend on the overall context in reacting of course, but “atheist whacko” sounds more likely to wind up in a statement like “Those atheist whackos don’t even believe in God! How can they have any morality? It’s un-American! They’re all just Communists or something!”, whereas “whacko atheist” sounds at least _more likely_ to crop up in a statement like “Yeah, he’s some kind of real whacko atheist, always ranting about the Vatican conspiracy to rule the world and secret squads of Jesuit hitmen–we had to kick him out of the Humanist Discussion Group, but he still keeps showing up for meetings”.
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2002, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/3 "2002-12-29T19:43:50Z")
That usage woiuld insult all Christians. You would be using _Christian_ as part of the insulting phrase, thus implying that _Christian_ alone is an insult. It’s more obvious if you try a phrase that is, unfortunately, sometimes used, such as _Jew bastard._
---
### Author:  [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/4 "2002-12-29T20:44:19Z")
I get what you are saying about usage, MEB. But, according to the rules of grammar, aren’t ‘wacko’ and ‘atheist’ both modifiers of the subject of the sentence, and independant of each other?
And, does it matter to anyone (but me) what words actually mean when they are used as insults?
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2002, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/5 "2002-12-29T23:25:29Z")
In this sentence, “Buck is an atheist wacko,” **wacko** is the predicate nominative, and **atheist** modifies **wacko**.
But in “Buck is a wacko atheist,” the predicate nominative is **atheist** , and it is modified by **wacko**.
Needless to say, a predicate nominative is identified with the subject (or nominative) of the sentence. Therefore, in the first case, you’re saying what sort of wacko Buck is. But in the second case, you’re saying what sort of atheist he is.
---
### Author:  [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2002, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/6 "2002-12-30T01:42:15Z")
Thanks, Lib. But, is it implied in either case that all atheists are wackos/all wackos are atheists? Or, in fact, does the use of the 1st word as a modifier point out that all atheists/wackos aren’t wackos/atheists?
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2002, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syntax-adj-insult-vs-adj-vs-insult/145527/7 "2002-12-30T02:06:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by robertliguori \*
> \*\*But, is it implied in either case that all atheists are wackos/all wackos are atheists? Or, in fact, does the use of the 1st word as a modifier point out that all atheists/wackos aren’t wackos/atheists? \*\*
I think either formulation would generally imply that _atheist_ is some sort of a pejorative, just as _wacko_ is. I think it would generally imply that an _atheist wacko_ was worse than an ordinary wacko, in some unspecified manner.
A theoretical exception might be if _atheist_ was being used purely as a descriptor. However, it’s hard for me to imagine an actual conversation where _atheist_ in a purely descriptive sense would be combined with _wacko_, which is vague and pejorative.