‘Nonperson person’ is an oxymoron. Then, what about ‘yesterday-nonperson person’ as in ‘the werewolf is now a yesterday-nonperson person’? It means he was a nonperson wolf yesterday, but he changed into a person, so he is now a person.

I think so because if I convert the adjective into a clause it is an ‘a person who was non-person yesterday...’ I think it perfectly makes sense.


I can sort of understand what you are saying, but it is not clear, nor natural.

We don't use yesterday as an adverb to modify adjectives in this way. It is not idiomatic to say

a yesterday red apple

to mean "an apple that was red yesterday".

But we can use relative clauses, as in my example. So you can say

a person who was a non-person yesterday

The noun "non-person" is unusual and it would be better to say "... who wasn't a person..." or "... who was a wolf"

Note also that "non-person" is a noun, not an adjective. You can use nouns attributively "a non-person animal". But you can't use them as adjectives. You can say "That animal is a non-person", but not "That animal is non-person". So you can't say "...who was non-person yesterday".


A werewolf is neither human nor wolf at any time. This is because a real wolf cannot change into a human and a real human cannot turn into a wolf.

A werewolf is a lycanthrope.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.