That analysis is incongruent with modern linguistic descriptions.

> We can say: "A noun functions as a modifier. An adjective functions as a modifier." But not: "A noun used as an adjective."

https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adj_nounmodifiers.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nouns-that-loo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct

The fact that everyone knows what a "layman writing style" means that the only place it's failing is your personal list of acceptable attributive nouns. But English isn't static. It runs on consensus. And consensus here that there's nothing weird about that use.

* * *

I was trying very hard to educate you without insulting you, but you're clearly resistant to that. Sorry.

This is an incredibly amusing hacker news interaction. You are 100% in the right in terms of having a breadth of accurate and passionate knowledge about your topic and it being relevant to the discussion @chowells

or, equivalently "breadth of accurate and passion knowledge"

Dude... an argument can certainly be made that English evolves by consensus; you're right about that. At the same time, that doesn't mean anything goes! It perhaps would be going too far to say that something is "correct" or "incorrect" English. But we can certainly give a proposed fragment of English a score measuring how well it matches the current consensus regarding what is a valid sentence in the language. Now,

> while others' poor experience is a result of their more layman writing style.

would receive a low score: "Layman" is not a noun commonly used as an adjective where common is relative to the overall usage of "layman".

The adjective is "lay".

While I am aware that there's prior use (centuries ago even) "layman writing" jumps at me a lot less than current use of things like ask, spend etc as nouns.

If you're right, I would say you're making a pedant argument. If you're wrong, I would say you're making a pedantic argument.

And, fine, let's call it an attributive noun rather than a noun used as an adjective. I was taught the noun as adjective thing in high school but happy to update my terminology. Indeed "layman" is not on my list of acceptable attributive nouns.

Did you notice how your first link says it's "incorrect" to use Kyoto as an attributive noun?

Of course it's not incorrect to use Kyoto as an attributive noun. "Kyoto accent" is perfectly correct. The "rules" laid out in that link are more like common patterns, not prescriptions.

Hard lines rarely happen in the real world. It's best to be flexible such that you can accept unfamiliar instances of familiar patterns without trouble.

So... you are disagreeing with your source? It very clearly says "incorrect."

I happen to agree with you and disagree with the source -- "Kyoto man" is perfectly fine in my opinion.

I'm certainly disagreeing with the part that claims there is an explicit list of correct uses. English isn't that simple. They were cited as a big list of examples, not as having all the rules.