Can these phrases be interpreted differently:
1 - old foggy London
2 - foggy old London
I tend to think the first imply London has always been foggy and the second that Lodon became foggy at one point of its existence. Make any sense?
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
There are three uses of the word "old" that could be intended in these sentences:
Constructed a long time ago. The typical meaning of "old".
Former; original. Used of cities to denote some area that comes from an older period than the rest.
An intensifier or familiarizer or even meaningless particle, as in "good old Dan" (Dan is not actually old).
"Old, foggy London" has the first meaning. London is old and foggy.
"Foggy Old London" (note capitalization) has the second meaning. Old London (a part of the city) is foggy.
"Foggy old London" has the third meaning. London, that jolly old city of ours, is foggy.
Maybe you could argue that "foggy old London" could have the first meaning as well, but it sounds like the wrong order of adjectives to me.