But why was it a star Italian pianist and not an Italian star pianist? It's a compound, of c ourse, made up of, well, a noun (star) and an adjectival phrase (Italian pianist) or something like that as linguistics or philology may put it.
Italian star pianist sounds more like it, doesn't it? A compound, namely the star pianist, further defined or identified by an adjective. That could make him even a great Italian star pianist, couldn't it. Or even an unbelievably great Italian star pianist.
 |
| (openclipart.org) |
Or is a star Italian pianist an Italian pianist who is considered to be a star even outside of Italy; who has come to be internationally known but was born in Italy since, after all, we all have to come from somewhere? And an Italian star pianist would simply be one who's only a star within Italy? I'm not sure.
Could, then, an Italian star pianist even be born somewhere other than Italy but who has become famous in Italy? That would at least seem to be logical, unless the logic is flawed from the outset, has false premises or ones that cannot be further explained themselves and thus proved to be corrrect or at least acceptable.
It's easier when you are simply dealing with a great pianist. He can be a great Italian or French pianist but never an Italian great pianist. But try saying that a dozen times and it may begin to sound righter and righter. Maybe that's how language changes from generation to generation anyway until we start finding some expression or word dated...
