ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

hmm, i'd say no - unless the the thing being regulated is some hybridized metric of "body" and "weight"

put another way, body weight is a thing - you're regulating the weight of the body. right?

yeah

every other editor here deletes and re-inserts

xxp Yeah, that's what I would do. There's a school of thought that says to use a hyphen in a situation like that only when it's necessary to distinguish from a misreading, but my philosophy tends to be why try to predict what people will or won't misread. Ain't no harm in using it.

the rule I read Wednesday says you don't need a hyphen if both adjeectives make sense alone. But in this case "body regulation" isn't really what's being done, "weight" has more...weight.

See, to me, "body-weight regulation" makes it clear that [body weight] modifies [regulation].

I guess I see Kevin's point, that it could suggest regulating a balance of body and weight, but I'd have to see the context to know whether that would be a plausible misreading.

the rule I read Wednesday says you don't need a hyphen if both adjeectives make sense alone

That's an interesting way of thinking about it; I'll have to remember that.

regulation of body weight

BOOYAH

it could suggest regulating a balance of body and weight

See, this is where we'd use an EN-dash!

that probably wd sound awkward though

xp

Last night, I found a document by the printer from an editor here, demanding that the hyphen be omitted from the phrase "church sexual-abuse scandal." He argued that the hyphen totally changed the meaning of the phrase, though I stared at it for a minute and couldn't figure out how.

it could suggest regulating a balance of body and weight

See, this is where we'd use an EN-dash!

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, September 10, 2010 4:34 PM (16 seconds ago)

yeah that's what i was thinking, which is why i'd avoid using it here

xp jmc i'd omit that hyphen too actually. i don't think the meaning is changed i just think the punctuation is unnecessary there

i recently learned that "kitty-corner" comes from "catty-corner" comes from "catercorner"!

Maybe it's not strictly necessary, KK, but when confronted with a four-word noun phrase like that (or like "four-word noun phrase," for that matter), I figure it can't hurt to be given a bit of word-grouping help. It just reads more smoothly, is all.

we used 2 hyphs for "health-care-reform bill"

Things I really ought to know by now, No.1 in a probably long series:

enquiry vs inquiry...

eh

in british i think there's a subtle difference, where enquiry is a query, and an inquiry is like a formal inquest.

don't know about US- favours just use of 'inquiry' i think?

yeah we don't fuck with "enquiry" much here

LinkedIn profiles have a bit at the bottom where you can say "interested in"... and they have 'job inquiries' as an option. Drives me insane.

From Wiktionary: According to Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926), inquiry should be used in relation to a formal inquest, and enquiry to the act of questioning. Many (though not all) British writers maintain this distinction; the Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, lists inquiry and enquiry as equal alternatives, in that order. Some British dictionaries, such as Chambers 21st Century Dictionary [1], present the two spellings as interchangeable variants in the general sense, but prefer inquiry for the "formal inquest" sense. In Australian English, inquiry represents a formal inquest (such as a government investigation) while enquiry is used in the act of questioning; (eg: the customer enquired about the status of his loan application); both spellings are current in Canadian English, where enquiry is often associated with scholarly or intellectual research. (See Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 282.)

American English usually uses inquiry.

The following documents are to be submitted as soon as possible, if not done so already

i mean usually i could do this, but for ref i just searched for 'grammer fiends' so obv not operating at 100% right now.

if they have not been already?

oh i dunno if that's any better?

"Please submit the following documents as soon as possible, if you have not done so already." Switching from passive to active usually solves that stuff for me.

yes, i like that.

back to you ledge, can you beat that?

CAN YOU HUH?

^ switch from passive to aggressive

fuck you all

yeah i've zung better

oooh while we're on the right thread can i get a second opinion on 'zung'

stung sung zung

^ zinged beast

Is this grammatically correct?

"He posted a new question to ILX, typing as fast as he could."

Do you always have to have a "while" in there? Would a long dash work instead, or is this construction simply grammatically incorrect?

You don't need a 'while' in there, I think, the end of your sentence is an adverbial describing the way in which he posted rather than a separate activity.

Ah, an adverbial. Thanks! Are adverbial phrases considered a fiction writing faux pas on the level of adverbs?

depending on which linguist you ask almost all clauses can be described as having adverbial components

This is causing huge arguments in work:

1. "It was a pleasure to walk past the building"

OR

2. "It was a pleasure to walk passed the building"

I say 1. Everybody else says 2. Which is correct, and why?

are you serious?

I sense a trap.

Hmmm.

It's like that time in primary school I had to draw the water in a bottle turned on its side and go it wrong. I know it is.

Wait.

Is 'It was a pleasure to walk' the name of someone where you work, nate?

go it wrong got it wrong

I am serious. I thought it was obviously PAST, I can't see any way on earth it could be PASSED, but a bunch of people have got me doubting myself. People who I previously thought were reasonably intelligent.

#1. Anything else is total lunacy.

Also recently found in a book at work: "pho-hawk." Apparently the author has a particular attachment to that horror. Should such people be killed and eaten?

God, nate, you must have thought you were going mad. Like the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

I work with a load of idiots, obviously.

you don't understand! my dog, who i have named "it was a pleasure to walk", had just eaten a building!

Most amusing.

I don't understand 'pho-hawk' - what is that supposed to be?

faux hawk?

as in, the dude haircut also known as the hoxton fin

Faux, yes. I don't even....

Grammar folks,

What are your feelings on the tendency to refer to "a politics" or even "a politic"? Is one more correct than another? Or is it just inflated? The phrase in question is "an acerbic sexual politics".