A few years ago, my attention was drawn to a feature of the English language in which nouns can be made to pile up as adjectives:

Student library study carrel

Emergency passenger intercom handset

Recently I bought a box of bouillon powder packets labeled in English and Spanish: (notice the “bouillon powder packets”) which put me in mind of this attribute of English.  The box says:

“Chicken Flavor Bouillon Powder” (I would have said “flavored”)

“Caldo con sabor de pollo en polvo” (nearly twice as many words)

When I first read (whatever it was) that called my attention to this trait of the English language, I was impressed by the great economy of expression it allows.
Then, in a mere coincidence, shortly thereafter I read some author’s claim that he thought such noun pile-ups were “ugly.”

So I have the following questions:

> What is the term for this kind of phrase—where nouns are pressed into service as adjectives, and piled up like this?

> Do you think it’s “ugly?”  If so, how would you avoid it without making your writing sound like a trot?**

> I have always assumed it is from the German roots of English.  Is that correct?

_____________________________________

Speaking of “flavor” or “flavored”—

> Which would you use?

> Am I the only one who hates the expression “ice tea?”  I think it should be “iced tea.”  Am I wrong here? 

______________________________________

** Does everyone know the meaning of the expression “trot?” 
When I was in Latin School in Boston, this was the term we used for a book (either published or student-marked) with a word-for-word interlinear translation of a foreign-language text.  (No attempt was made to render the text into normal English—it was just literally “word-for-word,” and you were on your own when it came to submitting a rational translation.)  Using trots was expressly forbidden, and there were penalties attached to being caught with one.

I still have some Latin>English trots from my Latin days. Ovid being the one I remember the most: red cover, at least ten different students comments in it, well worn.

What is the term for this kind of phrase—where nouns are pressed into service as adjectives, and piled up like this?

Verbose means using lots of words (not just verbs), so perhaps nounose - but noone knows.

LOL! 

Excellent!

How did you think of verbosity, Doulang, lol.

Um, you are referring to attributive nouns, Cosmic.

> Am I the only one who hates the expression “ice tea?”  I think it should be “iced tea.”  Am I wrong here?

Once again, it is an attributive noun that can be used instead of the adjective.

I don’t know the origin of such words, but I do think that they are ugly at times and that they should be used sparingly.

Eddie88 - 11 September 2009 01:03 AM

How did you think of verbosity, Doulang, lol.

Um, you are referring to attributive nouns, Cosmic.

> Am I the only one who hates the expression “ice tea?”  I think it should be “iced tea.”  Am I wrong here?

Once again, it is an attributive noun that can be used instead of the adjective.

I don’t know the origin of such words, but I do think that they are ugly at times and that they should be used sparingly.

Thanks, Eddie.

I either didn’t know or just forget the idea of “attributive nouns.”

But I think I recall that this exact phenomenon—the piling up of one attributive noun after another—had its own name.  Not so?

To my understanding, there is no such term. But I’ll happily be proven wrong

I have seen the term “noun string” for this.

By the way, “ice cream” was originally “iced cream”.

ACB - 11 September 2009 03:53 AM

I have seen the term “noun string” for this.

By the way, “ice cream” was originally “iced cream”.

ACB - 11 September 2009 03:53 AM

I have seen the term “noun string” for this.

By the way, “ice cream” was originally “iced cream”.

ICED CREAM?!?!?!  I’m sorry—that is just so wrong on so many levels!  Luckily they had the wit to change it.
(grumbling under my breath) “Iced cream indeed.  I’ll iced cream them one they’ll never forget . . .”

Thanks for the lead with “noun string.”
————————————————————————————————-

This site mentions them under the heading of “Common Grammatical and Stylistic Problems”

Noun strings offer shorthand expressions. For instance, the last three words in the phrase “active noise control system” represent a noun string,
and the phrase itself is a more direct way of saying “a noise control system that is active.”
But noun strings can be confusing, too. The phrase

  postoperative recuperation program procedure indicator sheet

is difficult to read precisely because it contains a noun string. Each noun causes the reader to stop for a moment,
believing that he has reached the end of the phrase.
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/Groupings/Schemes of Omission.htm

I observe that the word “indicator” is completely gratuitous, and has been invented by the authors to make their point.
I don’t think that halting reading because of a delusion that you’ve reached the end of the phrase is a problem.
—————————————————————

This site is stern indeed about noun strings, and has a practice work sheet (Sorry—I mean “a sheet of examples to practice on”) for undoing them.
http://www.designsensory.com/pws/lesson5/

He says the problem with them is that they tax the reader’s energy in decoding them.
I think the problem is that the reader’s ATTENTION is diverted, not that his ENERGY is sapped.

This example illustrates one reason that they are sometimes ambiguous—
a straight-up adjective almost HAS to come first, no matter which noun it modifies:

New motorcycle motor durability equipment tests are being performed by engineers.

I think this could be disambiguated with just ONE prepositional phrase:
> Engineers are performing motor durability tests on new motorcycle equipment.—“New” can be located wherever it is supposed to fall.

> Engineers have new durability tests for motorcycle motor equipment.” (This reveals the fake addition of “equipment”)

I suppose you could use this punctuation—even though it would not repay the trouble:
> Engineers are performing motorcycle motor durability new-equipment tests.

But one prepositional phrase does the trick:
> Engineers are performing motorcycle motor durability tests on new equipment.
Now the sentence is not ambiguous in the least, and it doesn’t use so many prepositional phrases that it makes it sound like you’re singing Italian opera.

- But notice the gratuitous addition of the fake word “equipment”
The sentence would more naturally say
> Engineers are performing new durability tests on motorcycle motors. (better than “. . . new tests of durability on the motors of motorcycles Figaro Figaro Figaro”)

> Engineers are performing durability tests on new motorcycles’ motors. (better than ” . . on the motors of new motorcycles.”)

> Engineers are performing durability tests on new motorcycle motors. (better than ” . . . on the new motors of motorcycles,” which is awful. 
. .“Engineers are performing tests of durability on the new motors of motorcycles tiddly pom,” said Winnie the Pooh.)

————————————————————————————

This is a member-contributor site like this one, with a terse response disambiguating noun phrases, noun strings, and collocations.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=343495
————————————————————————————-

Here’s a site that recommends converting noun strings into prepositional sprawl—or even two sentences.
http://www.editingthatworks.com/step4.htm

Bad example
  The order confirmation e-mail is your receipt that can be printed for your records.

Why is it bad?
  You have to chop up ‘order confirmation e-mail’ in your head in order to understand it.

Example with the noun string removed
  The email with your order confirmation is your receipt that can be printed for your records

Example sorted out
  We will send you an email with confirmation of your order. Please print the email if you want a receipt.  (TWENTY WORDS!!!)

I don’t know about anyone else, but *I* don’t have to chop up “order conformation e-mail” in my head in order to understand it.
Furthermore, I’m not interested enough in the intimate workings of their office methods to want to fart around all day listening to them drivel on
with advisories that I can print out my own emails if I choose.

I would be perfectly happy with
> “Our printable order confirmation email is your receipt.”

ACB - 11 September 2009 03:53 AM

I have seen the term “noun string” for this.

By the way, “ice cream” was originally “iced cream”.

ACB - 11 September 2009 03:53 AM

I have seen the term “noun string” for this.

By the way, “ice cream” was originally “iced cream”.

ICED CREAM?!?!?!  I’m sorry—that is just so wrong on so many levels!  Luckily they had the wit to change it.
(grumbling under my breath) “Iced cream indeed.  I’ll iced cream them one they’ll never forget . . .”

Thanks for the lead with “noun string.”
————————————————————————————————-

This site mentions noun strings under the heading of “Common Grammatical and Stylistic Problems”

It says:

Noun strings offer shorthand expressions. For instance, the last three words in the phrase “active noise control system” represent a noun string,
and the phrase itself is a more direct way of saying “a noise control system that is active.”
But noun strings can be confusing, too. The phrase

  postoperative recuperation program procedure indicator sheet

is difficult to read precisely because it contains a noun string. Each noun causes the reader to stop for a moment,
believing that he has reached the end of the phrase.
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/Groupings/Schemes of Omission.htm

I observe that the word “indicator” is completely gratuitous, and has been invented by the authors to make their point.
I don’t think that halting reading because of a delusion that you’ve reached the end of the phrase is a problem.
—————————————————————

This site is stern indeed about noun strings, and has a practice work sheet (Sorry—I mean “a sheet of examples to practice on”) for undoing them.
http://www.designsensory.com/pws/lesson5/

He says the problem with them is that they tax the reader’s energy in decoding them.
I think the problem is that the reader’s ATTENTION is diverted, not that his ENERGY is sapped.

This example illustrates one reason that they are sometimes ambiguous—
a straight-up adjective almost HAS to come first, no matter which noun it modifies:

New motorcycle motor durability equipment tests are being performed by engineers.

I think this could be disambiguated with just ONE prepositional phrase:
> Engineers are performing motor durability tests on new motorcycle equipment.—“New” can be located wherever it is supposed to fall.

> Engineers have new durability tests for motorcycle motor equipment.” (This reveals the fake addition of “equipment”)

I suppose you could use this punctuation—even though it would not repay the trouble:
> Engineers are performing motorcycle motor durability new-equipment tests.

But one prepositional phrase does the trick:
> Engineers are performing motorcycle motor durability tests on new equipment.
Now the sentence is not ambiguous in the least, and it doesn’t use so many prepositional phrases that it makes it sound like you’re singing Italian opera.

- But notice the gratuitous addition of the fake word “equipment”
The sentence would more naturally say
> Engineers are performing new durability tests on motorcycle motors. (better than “. . . new tests of durability on the motors of motorcycles Figaro Figaro Figaro”)

> Engineers are performing durability tests on new motorcycles’ motors. (better than ” . . on the motors of new motorcycles.”)

> Engineers are performing durability tests on new motorcycle motors. (better than ” . . . on the new motors of motorcycles,” which is awful. 
. .“Engineers are performing tests of durability on the new motors of motorcycles tiddly pom,” said Winnie the Pooh.)

————————————————————————————

This is a member-contributor site like this one, with a terse response disambiguating noun phrases, noun strings, and collocations.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=343495
————————————————————————————-

Here’s a site that recommends converting noun strings into prepositional sprawl—or even two sentences.
http://www.editingthatworks.com/step4.htm

Bad example
  The order confirmation e-mail is your receipt that can be printed for your records.

Why is it bad?
  You have to chop up ‘order confirmation e-mail’ in your head in order to understand it.

Example with the noun string removed
  The email with your order confirmation is your receipt that can be printed for your records

Example sorted out
  We will send you an email with confirmation of your order. Please print the email if you want a receipt.  (TWENTY WORDS!!!)

I don’t know about anyone else, but *I* don’t have to chop up “order conformation e-mail” in my head in order to understand it.
Furthermore, I’m not interested enough in the intimate workings of their office methods to want to fart around all day listening to them drivel on
with advisories that I can print out my own emails if I choose.

I would be perfectly happy with
> “Our printable order confirmation email is your receipt.”

bandito-esque.