[Grammar] Dominant Performance Over

[JosephBerk]

a) "A performance dominant over team B...."
b) "A dominant performance over team B...."
c) "A performance over team B...."

a) and b) sound okay to me, but not c). Does it mean that "dominant" goes together with "over", in the same way that "superior" and "comparable" (to name a few examples) go together with "to", such that the following are standard English:

"A defense superior to team B's ...."
"A superior defense to team B's ...."
"A defense comparable to team B's ...."
"A comparable defense to team B's ...."

 

[Raymott]

a) "A performance dominant over team B...."
b) "A dominant performance over team B...."
c) "A performance over team B...."

a) and b) sound okay to me, but not c). Does it mean that "dominant" goes together with "to", in the same way that "superior" and "comparable" (to name a few examples) go together with "to", such that the following are standard English:
I don't see how it could mean that. Your three sentences all use "dominant over", so your not liking c) cannot be due to the preposition. A more reasonable conclusion is that you cannot exclude the word "dominant" (as you have done in c) if you want to express the concept of "dominance over."

"A defense superior to team B's ...."
"A superior defense to team B's ...."
"A defense comparable to team B's ...."
"A comparable defense to team B's ...."

Note that if you excluded "superior" or "comparable" from the latter sentences, they wouldn't sound good either, like c).

To the point about prepositions, I think "dominant over" is the right phrase.

 

[JosephBerk]

"be hard on" = "be mean to". So the following are correct too?

"A manager hard on his subordinates....."
"A hard manager on his subordinates......"

 

[Raymott]

"be hard on" = "be mean to". So the following are correct too?

"A manager hard on his subordinates....."
"A hard manager on his subordinates......"

The first sounds correct; the second not.
It would be better if you could write whole sentences. Often a simple phrase is not enough to say whether something is grammatical.

 

[JosephBerk]

"A performance dominant over team B will send Team A to the final." (1)
"A dominant performance over team B will send Team A to the final."

"A defense superior to team B's defense will carry Team A to victory." (2)
"A superior defense to team B's defense will carry Team A to victory."

"Comments similar to yesterday's comments will not be allowed." (3)
"Similar comments to yesterday's comments will not be allowed."

"He wants a salary comparable to his colleagues' salaries." (4)
"He wants a comparable salary to his colleagues' salaries."

"A manager hard on his subordinates is an employer to avoid." (5)
"A hard manager on his subordinates is an employer to avoid."

Every pair above is okay except the last, pair (5), where the second sentence is objected to by Raymott. Hmmmm.....

 

[5jj]

"A manager hard on his subordinates is an employer to avoid." (5)
"A hard manager on his subordinates is an employer to avoid."

Every pair above is okay except the last, pair (5), where the [second] sentence is objected to by Raymott. Hmmmm.....

I second Raymott's objection.

Actually, I don't like the first sentence much either. It sounds very strained; I think it sounds far more natural as:

"A manager who is hard on his subordinates is an employer to avoid." (5)

 

[JosephBerk]

The "[noun] [adjective] [preposition]" format doesn't not always have an equivalent "[adjective] [noun] [preposition]" format?

 

[Raymott]

"A performance dominant over team B will send Team A to the final." (1)
"A dominant performance over team B will send Team A to the final."

"A defense superior to team B's [STRIKE]defense [/STRIKE]will carry Team A to victory." (2)
"A superior defense to team B's [STRIKE]defense [/STRIKE]will carry Team A to victory."

"Comments similar to yesterday's [STRIKE]comments [/STRIKE]will not be allowed." (3)
"Similar comments to yesterday's [STRIKE]comments [/STRIKE]will not be allowed."

"He wants a salary comparable to his that of his colleagues. [STRIKE]salaries[/STRIKE]." (4)
"He wants a comparable salary to that of his colleagues. [STRIKE]salaries[/STRIKE]."

"A manager hard on his subordinates is an employer to avoid." (5)
"A hard manager on his subordinates is an employer to avoid."

Every pair above is okay except the last, pair (5), where the sentence is objected to by Raymott. Hmmmm....
That's right.

.

Now that you've written complete sentences, I'll comment again.
You've only written "performance" once in the first pair; and you only need "defense", "comments" etc. once in the others, as well.
Yes, there are all acceptable (more or less) except for the second sentence of the last pair. But they are not equally good.
I don't like 1b much. In 2, 3, 4, they are both OK, but the first version sounds better.

5b is wrong. Do you think this sentence is analogous to the others?

 

[JosephBerk]

How is "hard on" different from "dominant over", "superior to", "comparable to", or "similar to", such that "hard" cannont precede a noun but "dominant", "superior", "comparable", and "similar" could?

 

[5jj]

How is "hard on" different from "dominant over", "superior to", "comparable to", or "similar to", such that "hard" cannont precede a noun but "dominant", "superior", "comparable", and "similar" could?

'hard' implies no sense of comparison/superiority in the way that the others do. It is a different type of adjective.

 

[Raymott]

How is "hard on" different from "dominant over", "superior to", "comparable to", or "similar to", such that "hard" cannont precede a noun but "dominant", "superior", "comparable", and "similar" could?

For me, it's not the adjective 'hard' that is the problem. It's the noun - 'manager'.

"A father loved by his children ..." OK
"A loved father by his children ..." Not OK.

As I said, I prefer the first form in each case. With some of your examples, the second is understandable, but you can't take that as a pattern for just any adjective/noun/preposition.