Timeline for "matters spiritual" vs "spiritual matters"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:57 | history | edited | Jasper |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 13, 2015 at 7:26 | vote | accept | nima | ||
| Mar 10, 2015 at 11:19 | comment | added | TimR | People learning English can visit this site and ask questions about all things grammatical. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 21:07 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @Gary: I think perhaps you should post an answer. I was a bit surprised we didn't already have a "definitive" Question+Answer here on ELL for this rather non-standard usage - particularly because I myself am a bit prone to using it (usually facetiously, to a greater or lesser extent). If queried, I always end up citing examples like Knights Templar. I have the feeling things are slightly different with "verb-based adjectives", so, for example, matters arising isn't quite in the same class as OP's cited matters spiritual. But I'm not clear on exactly why. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 20:20 | comment | added | Gary | They mean exactly the same thing. Since this is from a literary work, the rules of grammar and semantics are less strict. Dickens just switched the positions to emphasize one word over the other. In formal writing it would be "spiritual matters". I can draft a detailed answer if you still think you need one. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 19:28 | comment | added | user6951 | As @Fumble's comment exemplifies, in Dickens, you are going to run into very many constructions in grammar that are outdated. This is only going to prompt more and more questions about such things, including such things as convoluted grammar. Again, at your level of English, your time would be better used reading a work of contemporary English, or at least something from the 20th century. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 19:24 | history | edited | user6951 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Provided the source, added appropriate tags
|
| Mar 9, 2015 at 19:21 | comment | added | user6951 | When you do not provide the source of your quote, you do not allow folks the opportunity to answer the question according to context. Also you need to indicate that you are citing someone else's material, but you've been told about this before. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 19:18 | history | edited | user6951 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Provided the source, added appropriate tags
|
| Mar 9, 2015 at 18:59 | comment | added | DoneWithThis. | Agreed - you need to know when you use it & when to leave it alone. Not easy for a non-native I wouldn't have thought. | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 18:58 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | You might like to check out Why do some adjectives follow the nouns they modify? on ELU. Essentially, the "non-standard" sequence in your example (over 150 years old) usually only occurs in formal or "affected" contexts today (where it might lend a "touch of gravitas", but I wouldn't recommend learners to copy the style, since it won't always work at all). | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 18:56 | answer | added | DoneWithThis. | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 18:34 | answer | added | HarryCBurn | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 9, 2015 at 18:24 | history | asked | nima | CC BY-SA 3.0 |