Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009

Quoth High Priest <HP@snotmail.com>, and I quote:

It would have to be "funst" then.

This is what the thesaurus is for:  most editions offer several
near-synonyms for enjoyable (adj.)

You may be right, but this is an unsafe assumption.  Conversation
usually requires a high frequency of redundancies, repetitiong,
and so on.  (Brief "telegraphic" talk seldom seems "informal" ---
usually the reverse, cf. military jargon.)

Well, let's look at Grammar Girl's own words: "In the phrase 'sugar
cookie,' 'sugar' is a noun, but it's being used in an attributive way to
describe the cookie."  But do we suppose that a sweeter recipe would be a
sugarier cookie", or that there could be a "sugariest cookie"?

Or, if someone wants to object that "sugar" is a multi-syllable word and
thus not parallel: while there are such things as church doors, can there
be a "churcher door" or a "churchest door"?

I see no particular reason why "fun" could not, like any noun, be used
attributively.  "A fun time was had by all" seems--to me, anyway--
something that would be at home even in what Curme calls "choice
English".  There is no single word that comes readily to mind that
expresses quite the same thought.  Those who agree will so use it, those
who disagree will not, and time will tell the tale.

(That doesn't mean that the careful writer will lard his or her work with
the term: as always, careful consideration pays dividends.  "Amusing,
Pleasant, & Associates" has not yet gone out of business.)

But that a noun has a free and easy attributive use does not signify that
it can readily be inflected as a normal adjective can.