John's red house
red John's houseSome difference in meaning is possible with regards to these: in a situation where a distinction between alternatives is being made, the foremost marks the distinguishing attribute. That is "John's red house" pinpoints that out of the red houses, it is John's house that is of interest. The other order pinpoints that out of John's houses, it's the red one that is being referred to.
Now, in this language, there's a further complication: for cases other than nominative, the case congruence fails whenever a genitive is inserted between an adjective and a noun, and the adjective is marked for the default case (viz. the accusative in the language I am imagining, although nominative could possibly be a good option as well - with the accusative as a default case, there's just an additional possible quirk: nominative congruence doesn't fail!)
John's red-at house-at
red-acc John's house-atHowever, the genitive is also used for the first noun in apposition in compound-like lexical units composed of two nouns. In such a case, congruence is not affected.
This idea is basically inspired by various weird congruence things in Finnish:
- an almost closed class of expressions where the adjective or determiner is in any number of cases, but the noun is in either the partitive or the instructive (~instrumental). Admittedly, this is pretty different from the idea given, but it's still an interesting non-standard congruence thing. Examples of such expressions are "pitkäksi aikaa" (in a long time, long-translative time-partitive), "monella tavoin" (in many ways, many-on manner-instructive)
- weird things when numerals and determiners in the nominative appear: viisi miestä (five-(nom/acc) man-(part), nämä kahdet autot (these two-plur.nom/acc car.plur.nom/acc), nämä kahta autoa (these two-sg.part car.part)
The latter might be more relevant to this, but that's also as far as I can tell one of the things where native intuitions for Finnish speakers vary the most.