New = that gantlet is an acceptable alternative. I'm well aware of the phrase, but have always believed it to be gauntlet.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:33 (thirteen years ago) link
Well, apparently the original mis-translation of Swedish "gantlopp" into "gauntlet" via mishearing was around 400 years ago, during the Thirty Years' War. I don't feel too bad about a mistake with four centuries of precedent.
― Q: What's small, clumsy, and slow? A: A toddler. (Laurel), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:36 (thirteen years ago) link
I might start using "run the gantelope" from now on.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Oh please do.
― Q: What's small, clumsy, and slow? A: A toddler. (Laurel), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Next time the phrase is called for, I promise I will.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 21:45 (thirteen years ago) link
"high quality standards" and "high-quality standards" mean different things to me. The former seems more likely to be the intended one.
― seandalai, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 22:38 (thirteen years ago) link
That's an excellent Wikipedia entry. I'm going to try to work "running the gantelope" into a conversation tomorrow.
― seandalai, Wednesday, 8 September 2010 22:39 (thirteen years ago) link
Me too
― Running the Gantelope (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Wednesday, 8 September 2010 22:42 (thirteen years ago) link
Off the top of my head:
IIRC, running the gantlet is an ordeal, where the victim passes between two lines of their peers, who wallop him as he attempts to run through.
IIRC, throwing down the gauntlet is a challenge to a joust or similar duel, where the challenger removes his heavy, protective glove with long cuffs and hurls it at the feet of the one being challenged.
Running the gamut is to display a nearly-universal variety within some specific category, as in the fabled gamut of soup to nuts.
Running the gantelope is a rowdy, drunken, impromptu sporting event similar to the running of the bulls in Pamplona, Spain, except, of course,with gantelopes serving the place of the bulls.
― Aimless, Thursday, 9 September 2010 00:42 (thirteen years ago) link
ok, hyphens and modifiers again. "body-weight regulation" WITH a hyphen, right? compound modifier?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:18 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― max skim (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:24 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah
every other editor here deletes and re-inserts
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:26 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 10 September 2010 20:27 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:29 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 10 September 2010 20:31 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 10 September 2010 20:32 (thirteen years ago) link
regulation of body weight
BOOYAH
― max skim (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:33 (thirteen years ago) link
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, 10 September 2010 20:34 (thirteen years ago) link
that probably wd sound awkward though
xp
― max skim (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:34 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 10 September 2010 20:35 (thirteen years ago) link
― 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
― max skim (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:36 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― max skim (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:40 (thirteen years ago) link
i recently learned that "kitty-corner" comes from "catty-corner" comes from "catercorner"!
― the parking garage has more facebook followers than my band (Jordan), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:44 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 10 September 2010 20:45 (thirteen years ago) link
we used 2 hyphs for "health-care-reform bill"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 September 2010 20:49 (thirteen years ago) link
Things I really ought to know by now, No.1 in a probably long series:
enquiry vs inquiry...
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Thursday, 16 September 2010 15:20 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― k¸ (darraghmac), Thursday, 16 September 2010 15:22 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah we don't fuck with "enquiry" much here
― k3vin k., Thursday, 16 September 2010 17:42 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 16 September 2010 23:31 (thirteen years ago) link
The following documents are to be submitted as soon as possible, if not done so already
― illiterate mods are killing ilx (darraghmac), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:27 (thirteen years ago) link
i mean usually i could do this, but for ref i just searched for 'grammer fiends' so obv not operating at 100% right now.
― illiterate mods are killing ilx (darraghmac), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:28 (thirteen years ago) link
if they have not been already?
― ledge, Monday, 20 September 2010 15:42 (thirteen years ago) link
oh i dunno if that's any better?
― illiterate mods are killing ilx (darraghmac), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:44 (thirteen years ago) link
"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.
― Shock and Awe High School (Phil D.), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:45 (thirteen years ago) link
yes, i like that.
back to you ledge, can you beat that?
― illiterate mods are killing ilx (darraghmac), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:46 (thirteen years ago) link
CAN YOU HUH?
^ switch from passive to aggressive
fuck you all
― ledge, Monday, 20 September 2010 15:46 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah i've zung better
― ledge, Monday, 20 September 2010 15:49 (thirteen years ago) link
oooh while we're on the right thread can i get a second opinion on 'zung'
― illiterate mods are killing ilx (darraghmac), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:49 (thirteen years ago) link
stung sung zung
― ledge, Monday, 20 September 2010 15:51 (thirteen years ago) link
^ zinged beast
― illiterate mods are killing ilx (darraghmac), Monday, 20 September 2010 15:55 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― wk, Monday, 20 September 2010 20:24 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― Running the Gantelope (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 20 September 2010 21:09 (thirteen years ago) link
Ah, an adverbial. Thanks! Are adverbial phrases considered a fiction writing faux pas on the level of adverbs?
― wk, Monday, 20 September 2010 21:29 (thirteen years ago) link
depending on which linguist you ask almost all clauses can be described as having adverbial components
― dayo, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 00:01 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― nate woolls, Friday, 24 September 2010 14:50 (thirteen years ago) link
are you serious?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 24 September 2010 14:52 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― the too encumbered madman (GamalielRatsey), Friday, 24 September 2010 14:52 (thirteen years ago) link
go it wrong got it wrong
― the too encumbered madman (GamalielRatsey), Friday, 24 September 2010 14:53 (thirteen years ago) link