Ask the Grammar Harpy

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
81

Compound adjectives, compound adverbial phrases, and compound nouns

Re the “long-sleeved shirt” phrase: this is an example of a compound adjective. It is almost always hyphenated, no matter where it is placed in the sentence:

I have a long-sleeved shirt.
My shirt is long-sleeved, not sleeveless.

Compound adjectives modify the noun following. In the example above, it isn’t a long shirt, it isn’t merely a sleeved shirt, it is a long-sleeved shirt. If the compound adjective is separated from the noun that it modifies, it is hyphenated to avoid ambiguity. Note how the meaning of the following can be misunderstood:

I have long-tangled hair.
I have long tangled hair.

Do I mean that my hair has been tangled for a long time, or do I mean that my hair is both long and tangled? Using the hyphen removes the ambiguity from the sentence.

However, some words have gone from possibly being hyphenated at one time to being one unhyphenated word. “Bulletproof” is one example; it doesn’t matter where it falls in the sentence:

I have a bulletproof vest.
My vest is bulletproof.

Compound adverbial phrases are only hyphenated when they immediately precede the modified noun AND when the adverb is not an “ly” adverb (“ly” adverbs are never hyphenated):

He is a well-known actor.
He is well known.
He is a highly qualified doctor
He is highly qualified.

Certain other adverbs, such as “very” or “pretty” (when used as an adverb) are also not hyphenated when part of an adverbial phrase, even when immediately preceding the noun:

That is a very leafy tree.
That’s a pretty rotten way to treat someone.

Compound nouns are sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not. It is not necessarily incorrect to hyphenate, and sometimes doing so will, again, avoid ambiguity.

She had a breast reduction.
She had breast-reduction surgery.
She had breast reduction surgery.

Some compound nouns are hyphenated all the time. Others used to be hyphenated but have over time become either two separate unhyphenated words or one unhyphenated word. It is best to check a dictionary to make sure. Most of the “self” words (self-esteem, self-employment) are always hyphenated. “Bull’s-eye” is hyphenated, but “bull snake” is two separate words and “bullwhip” is one unhyphenated word. I think compound nouns can be the most confusing, so I just look them up if I’m not sure about it. (These are according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition.)

82

<Compound adjectives modify the noun following. In the example above, it isn’t a long shirt, it isn’t merely a sleeved shirt, it is a long-sleeved shirt. If the compound adjective is separated from the noun that it modifies, it is hyphenated to avoid ambiguity. Note how the meaning of the following can be misunderstood:

I have long-tangled hair.
I have long tangled hair.>

I’ve never seen the phrase long-tangled. And I would say “long, tangled,” not “long tangled.”

<Do I mean that my hair has been tangled for a long time, or do I mean that my hair is both long and tangled? Using the hyphen removes the ambiguity from the sentence.>

Just say “I have hair that’s been tangled for a long time.”

<Compound adverbial phrases are only hyphenated when they immediately precede the modified noun AND when the adverb is not an “ly” adverb (“ly” adverbs are never hyphenated):

He is a well-known actor.
He is well known.
He is a highly qualified doctor
He is highly qualified.>

I just realized this point. I had always done so, but I’d never realized why. I suppose I might have, but this way I dunhafta :slight_smile:

<Certain other adverbs, such as “very” or “pretty” (when used as an adverb) are also not hyphenated when part of an adverbial phrase, even when immediately preceding the noun:

That is a very leafy tree.
That’s a pretty rotten way to treat someone.>

Yes, but these aren’t including gerunds. The above (well-known, highly qualified) are.

<Compound nouns are sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not. It is not necessarily incorrect to hyphenate, and sometimes doing so will, again, avoid ambiguity.

She had a breast reduction.
She had breast-reduction surgery.
She had breast reduction surgery.>

Just go with “She had surgery to reduce the size of her breasts.”

The rest of this is getting so I’d have to look stuff up, and I don’t have the time to do that without getting paid . . . <eg>

83

“Well known” and “highly qualified” aren’t gerunds. A gerund is the present participle form of a verb that is functioning as a nouns e.g.,

Running is the sport I like best.

I can’t imagine saying “she had surgery to reduce the size of her breasts” instead of “she had breast-reduction surgery.” This is obviously a style choise, but it is, to me, unnecessarily wordy to say it the first way.

84

missbunny said:

"‘Well known’ and ‘highly qualified’ aren’t gerunds. A gerund is the present participle form of a verb that is functioning as a nouns e.g.,

Running is the sport I like best.

I can’t imagine saying ‘she had surgery to reduce the size of her breasts’ instead of ‘she had breast-reduction surgery.’ This is obviously a style choice, but it is, to me, unnecessarily wordy to say it the first way."

Damnit, the one obvious mistake I make and I realized after I posted. Oh well. It’s been a long day.

And I would probably have said “she got a boob job.” Which leaves the other party clueless as to if she had them enlarged or reduced.

85

Thi is probably so basic, but when do I use “whom” and when do I use “who”?

I’ve always had a real simple method when it came to this. Never, ever use whom. I can only screw up if I use whom.

And could you give lots and lots of examples. I’m not big onto sublity

86

Good comback, iampunha! I like your phrasing the best. And ditto for me on the long day yesterday - did you notice my several typos? Every time I don’t preview before submitting, I always make some stupid mistake. You’d think I would have learned by now, but nooooo, I just keep on doing it.

87

<This is probably so basic, but when do I use “whom” and when do I use “who”?>

This is not basic. You would be surprised how many people misuse these.

My basic rule is to use whom with a preposition.

Ex. 1: With whom are you going to the movies?
Ex. 2: Who are you going to the movies with?
Ex. 2 is bad grammar. Never end a sentence with a preposition.

I’ll go one further with you and explain the difference between whose and who’s. The difference here is roughly the same as with its vs. it’s.

Replace whose with his. Replace who’s with he’s.

I use these as examples only b/c they are simple.

<And could you give lots and lots of examples. I’m not big onto sublity>

Or spelling <grin, duck, run>.

88

In fact, I don’t have any problems with that statement, but it sounds like you do. Your critique should have read “I’ve got some problems with that statement”, or “That statement has some problems.” It’s a pronoun thing. I could go on but I think you get my point :wink:

I think this is what bothers me the most. Rather than trying to keep up with which words are hyphenated or compound or separated or spelled with a silent “e” or spelled with a final “i” instead of a “y” this year, my attitude has become: “You’ll read what I wrote and you’ll like it.”

Now that I think about it a little more, that’s not what bothers me most. What bothers me most are the Grammar mavens who think composition/punctuation is an exact science. Okay, in some cases it is; a period always ends a non-emphatic statement. I would have not had as much of a problem with a chemistry professor telling me that, contrary to my statement on the exam, carbon and hydrogen do not combine to form linoleum. But for that old bat to say that her preference is universal law was too much.

At least most of us seem to concede that style can be altered to avoid confusion and there is more than one way to close a quote. Just obey the eleven rules of writing and ignore people who tell you that “viruses” is an incorrect pluralization even though you can find it in every dictionary at hand.

89

<At least most of us seem to concede that style can be altered to avoid confusion and there is more than one way to close a quote. Just obey the eleven rules of writing and ignore people who tell you that “viruses” is an incorrect pluralization even though you can find it in every dictionary at hand.>

On that note, a friend of mine who is, coincidentally, in the English grad program at U-Cal Berkeley tells me that the proper plural of syllabus is syllabuses. This seems a bit odd, but possible. Anyone run into a similar alternate ending?

As for closing a quote, I hadn’t known of an alternte way of doing it until I came here, and I’ve never been penalized or corrected when I did it my way. Perhaps there are multiple accepted ways, much in the same way there are multiple types of, for example, a bibliography.

90

I NEVER end a sentence with a preposition, but I can’t remember where I heard this from.

91

“I NEVER end a sentence with a preposition, but I can’t remember where I heard this from.”

Hahaha. Very funny.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said, “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.”

I shit you not.

92

I know, technically speaking, periods are supposed to be used to seperate each letter of an acronym (e.g. C.I.A.), and that is how the acronyms that appear in dictionaries are listed. However it seems that more often nowadays they are spelled without the periods, including in newspapers. So what’s your take on this (or the take of any fellow grammar harpies)? Has spelling acronyms sans periods become accepted enough that it is now “grammartically correct”, or is it just an informal practice that shouldn’t be used for formal writing?

93

This isn’t “Ask the Spelling Harpy,” but I figure why the hell not? So spelling has been corrected.

Amok said:

“I know, technically speaking, periods are supposed to be used to separate each letter of an acronym (e.g. C.I.A.), and that is how the acronyms that appear in dictionaries are listed. However, it seems that more often nowadays they are spelled without the periods, including in newspapers. So what’s your take on this (or the take of any fellow grammar harpies)? Has spelling acronyms sans periods become accepted enough that it is now “grammatically correct,” or is it just an informal practice that shouldn’t be used for formal writing?”

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I use periods in formal writing and leave them out in informal writing unless I have been specifically told not to.

That said, there are some abbreviations I have only seen with periods in a dictionary, and I don’t completely trust something that won’t verbally anser my questions.

94

Well, it’s one thing for acronyms like CIA, FBI, USA, where you spell them out; writing them U.S.A. et al seems fine but unnecessary. But acronyms that are pronounced, completely or partially, are a lot weirder to do that with. UNICEF? NASA? UNESCO? KFOR? This last in particular would be hard to do something else with, since it’d have to be K.FOR. or K.For. or something—which are pretty clearly wrong.

On a related note, I should point out that according to some rules (British and French, that I know of), if an abbreviation ends with the same letter as the thing abbreviated, there should not be a period there. If you zoom over to the BBC, you can see them using “Mr” and “Dr” and so forth, without periods.

95

Agent Bork: Chief! Ya know that guy whose camper they were whackin’ off in?
Agent Fleming: Bork, you’re a federal agent! You represent the United States Government! Never end a sentence with a preposition.
Agent Bork: Oh, uh… Ya know that guy in whose camper they… I… I mean, that guy off in whose camper they were whacking?

96

blahedo, that thing about not using periods with the abbreviations for doctor and mister is a British custom. In American English, the period is supposed to be used.

I think that the importance of adhering to the rules of grammar varies depending on what audience you are writing for, and the type of writing you are doing. If you are writing university-level papers or an article for The Wall Street Journal, it is a lot more important to write by the rules than if you are writing informal e-mails. Also, the importance professors give to “correct” writing depends, in my experience, on which program you are in. In my line of work, I have edited hundreds of papers written by graduates of the Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and other Ivy League business schools and most of them can’t write correctly, or even coherently, to save their lives. When reading some of the atrocities that come across my desk, I am astonished that they could possibly have passed their classes. But writing perfectly correct standard written English isn’t what was important to their business programs then or to their jobs now. They were hired to develop strategy; someone else can make their ideas come out pretty for the big presentation.

And obviously, anyone writing fiction can write any darn way they want.

97

AerynSun said:

“Agent Bork: Chief! Ya know that guy whose camper they were whackin’ off in?
Agent Fleming: Bork, you’re a federal agent! You represent the United States Government! Never end a sentence with a preposition.
Agent Bork: Oh, uh… Ya know that guy in whose camper they… I… I mean, that guy off in whose camper they were whacking?”

Humor aside, this seems simpler:

You know that guy? They were whacking off in his camper!

98

But that drastically changes the meaning! In the original, Bork is calling attention to a person who owns a camper. In your version, iampunha, you call attention to the act perpetrated in the camper, not the owner thereof. (And only begs the question of: why are there multiple people whacking off in the camper, when their experience could be mutually enhanced by lending each other a hand (or other bits)? ;))

99

Dived v. Dove (i.e., into the water)
Hanged v. Hung (i.e., lynched)

Is it,

They hanged the outlaw.
They hung the outlaw.
He was hanged/hung.
??

I’ve been confused for a while, and now I’ve seen your thread, and may be enlightened!

Gracias.