 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010well-served or well served
Hyphenation has always thrown me for a loop. Which of the following is correct: "These people have not always been well served by the system in the past." or "These people have not always been well-served by the system in the past." Thanks. >Hyphenation has always thrown me for a loop. Which of the following is >correct: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"These people have not always been well-served by the system in the >past." I would use a hyphen if I had to use an adjective form, but in the example you give I would say "have not always been served well by the system". You're talking less about a persistent attribute of "these people" than about a transient relationship.  SignatureJohn > Hyphenation has always thrown me for a loop. Which of the following is > correct: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "These people have not always been well-served by the system in the > past." The first. "served" is a verb and "well" is an adverb which modifies the verb. "well-served" is an adjective, to be used in a sentence such as: - It was a well-served station. where it modifies the noun "station". It's not a good sentence, but you should be able to see the point. SignatureDavid >> Hyphenation has always thrown me for a loop. Which of the following is >> correct: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > where it modifies the noun "station". Disagree. "Be" is copulative, hence "well-served" is a predicate adjective modifying the subject "people". Strip it to its basics: People are well[-]served by it. Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has been high-strung all his life?" For that matter, would one write "These people have been ill served by the system in the past"? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has been > high-strung all his life?" Neither. Highly strung, without the hyphen. > For that matter, would one write "These > people have been ill served by the system in the past"? Yes. Well served, ill served, fairly served, unjustly served. poorly served: a hyphen would be wrong in any of those. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" >> Or "He has been high-strung all his life?" > > Neither. Highly strung, without the hyphen. OMG! You're kidding, Peter, right? "High-strung" and "highly strung" are different animals. Your "He has been highly strung all his life." is absurd. "He has been *high-strung* [with obligatory hyphen!] all his life." is perfect English (except in hyphenophobic Australia). [...] Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ >>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" >>> Or "He has been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > perfect English (except in hyphenophobic Australia). > [...] Interesting. That last sounds foreign to me. I now see, on looking up a couple of on-line dictionaries, that "highly strung" is marked as being BrE. In my mind, changing "highly-strung" to "high-strung" (for the sake of argument, I'm ignoring the hyphenation issue) is just as glaring an error as changing "well-hung" to "good-hung". As it happens, I do agree with using a hyphen when using such a phrase as an attributive adjective. Where I disagree with you and Eric is on the question of whether an adjective is the right thing to use in that sentence. As I read it, "has been strung" is the verb, and "highly" - or "high", if you must - is the adverb of degree. From what I've seen in the dictionaries, though, it appears that this reasoning does not work in AmE. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [Combining three replies] >>>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" >>>> Or "He has been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > up a couple of on-line dictionaries, that "highly strung" is > marked as being BrE. Ahá! To sum up: "He has been *high-strung* all his life." is perfect *American* English. "He has been *highly strung* all his life." is -- based on your, Nick's, and James's replies -- perfect *British* English and *Australian* English. The AmE version sounds as foreign/absurd/weird to you non-Yanks as the BrE and AusE version sounds to us (well, at least to me, speaking AmE). And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively applied to females. ================== Nick wrote: > ... I have no recollection of ever encountering "high strung" in > my life. The adjective "high-strung" is very common in AmE. > OTOH, "highly strung" seems entirely normal to me (meaning > nervous, prone to startle at sudden noises, worrisome etc). ================== James Hogg wrote: > Since "highly strung" is so perfectly acceptable to me and many > others (the OED, for instance, defines "nervous" as "excitable, > highly strung, easily agitated, anxious, timid"), I wonder why > some people object to it. Because to *American* ears, it sounds weird/wrong. Do highly(-)educated native Americans such as Evan and Jerry agree with me? > Or are they making some subtle distinction between "highly > strung" and "high-strung"? No distinction or difference in meaning. In AmE, "high-strung" also means "tending to be extremely nervous and sensitive" and "having an extremely nervous or sensitive temperament." Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > [Combining three replies] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively applied to females. It does indeed sound like we've discovered another perfect pondian separation of variants. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > [Combining three replies] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively applied to females. ... I think I first saw it when I was little and read books about horses. Some breeds were said to be high-strung. At Google Books: "she's high-strung": 207 "he's high-strung": 167 > ================== > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because to *American* ears, it sounds weird/wrong. Do highly(-)educated > native Americans such as Evan and Jerry agree with me? Oh, gosh, flattery. It sounds foreign to me, but not totally unfamiliar. As Nick said, it seems like an excellent example of a pondian difference. "I'll string the violin high" seems closer to English than "I'll string the violin highly." On the original topic, I'm with those who hyphenate "well" followed by a past participle when the combination is attributive but not when it's predicative. "The well-served dishes" "Our clients are not well served." -- Jerry Friedman [...] >> And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively applied >> to females. > ... > I think I first saw it when I was little and read books about horses. > Some breeds were said to be high-strung. True. Also, some breeds of dogs are known to be high-strung. I still believe that "high-strung" is usually applied to females; a typical example is that bitch-from-hell, Supermodel Naomi Campbell. In addition to certain horses, dogs, and females, femme-type homosexuals also tend to be high-strung (based on my observations). Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > [...] >>> And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively applied [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > In addition to certain horses, dogs, and females, femme-type homosexuals > also tend to be high-strung (based on my observations). They haven't caught you yet? SignatureDavid > [...] >>> And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively applied [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I still believe that "high-strung" is usually applied to females; a > typical example is that bitch-from-hell, Supermodel Naomi Campbell. I don't see a big difference. "High-strung actor" gets 54 hits, "High-strung actress" gets 58. For "waiter" and "waitress", it's 12 and 15. In Google Books, looking for "[s]he's high-strung" and "[s]he is [very|so] high-strung" I see roughly equal hits for both sexes in all variants. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> [...] >>>> And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't see a big difference. "High-strung actor" gets 54 hits, > "High-strung actress" gets 58. [...] That's a weak counter-argument, Evan. Keep in mind that nowadays "actor" is not a reliable indicator of sex. How many of those 54 high-strung "actors" are in fact *actresses*, i.e., females? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Until we know the sex of those 54 "actors," 54 vs. 58 is as meaningless as listing these four Google hits, because we don't know the sex of the individuals of these groups: "High-strung children" = 8,440 "High-strung kids" = 8,030 "High-strung youngsters" = 140 "High-strung teenagers" = 526 Raw Google hits to support my claim that "high-strung" is usually applied to females: "High-strung men" = 12,500 "High-strung women" = 785,000 <--- ! No typo. "High-strung man" = 32,700 "High-strung woman" = 72,700 <--- "High-strung male" = 935 "High-strung female" = 6,740 <--- "High-strung gentleman" = 146 "High-strung lady" = 5,540 <--- "High-strung gentlemen" = 67 "High-strung ladies" = 613 <--- "High-strung boy" = 11,000 "High-strung girl" = 32,300 <--- Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ >>> [...] >>>>> And, BTW, in the USA, "high-strung" is almost exclusively [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >"High-strung boy" = 11,000 >"High-strung girl" = 32,300 <--- Before Rey's survey, I knew that "high-strung" is applied to women far and away more often than it is to men, but it is nice to have some Internet data to back up my experience with the language. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >> been high-strung all his life?" > > Neither. Highly strung, without the hyphen. Frankly, I don't believe it. I will not accept that anyone would ever write "He has been highly strung all his life." That is farcical. >> For that matter, would one write "These people have been ill served by >> the system in the past"? > > Yes. Well served, ill served, fairly served, unjustly served. poorly > served: a hyphen would be wrong in any of those. I see we must simply agree to disagree. As I said before, those are all predicate adjectives, and hence in need of hyphenation. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >>> been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Frankly, I don't believe it. I will not accept that anyone would ever > write "He has been highly strung all his life." That is farcical. I think I would. If only because I have no recollection of ever encountering "high strung" in my life. OTOH, "highly strung" seems entirely normal to me (meaning nervous, prone to startle at sudden noises, worrisome etc). SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He >>>> has been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > entirely normal to me (meaning nervous, prone to startle at sudden > noises, worrisome etc). Since "highly strung" is so perfectly acceptable to me and many others (the OED, for instance, defines "nervous" as "excitable, highly strung, easily agitated, anxious, timid"), I wonder why some people object to it. Or are they making some subtle distinction between "highly strung" and "high-strung"? SignatureJames [...] > Since "highly strung" is so perfectly acceptable to me and many others > (the OED, for instance, defines "nervous" as "excitable, highly strung, > easily agitated, anxious, timid"), I wonder why some people object to > it. Or are they making some subtle distinction between "highly strung" > and "high-strung"? Yes, a fundamental one. "Strung" is an adjective, but "high- strung" (with or without hyphen) is not a case of an adverb modifying an adjective (which would warrant "highly"): it is a compounding of meaning, which is why the hyphen is mandatory. Compare hypothetical "highly falutin'". SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Eric Walker filted: >> Since "highly strung" is so perfectly acceptable to me and many others >> (the OED, for instance, defines "nervous" as "excitable, highly strung, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >which is why the hyphen is mandatory. Compare hypothetical "highly >falutin'". People can get highly-dudgeoned about this sort of thing.... ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to the thanks of an Ethiopian soldier)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Eric Walker filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to the thanks of an >Ethiopian soldier)....r And before that, The Frost Report "One of the African leaders was highly Selassie, some were fairly Selassie and others weren't Selassie at all". SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to the thanks of an >> Ethiopian soldier)....r > > And before that, The Frost Report "One of the African leaders was > highly Selassie, some were fairly Selassie and others weren't Selassie > at all". I suppose it might have been heard on The Frost Report, but it was certainly on "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again". SignatureDavid >>> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to >>> the thanks of an Ethiopian soldier)....r [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I suppose it might have been heard on The Frost Report, but it was > certainly on "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again". Are you certain? I recall that having been claimed here before I knew about ISIRTA, but then I got an iPod and listened to (I believe) the whole run and was surprised not to have encountered it. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither |Liberty nor Safety. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to >>>> the thanks of an Ethiopian soldier)....r [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about ISIRTA, but then I got an iPod and listened to (I believe) the > whole run and was surprised not to have encountered it. I am certain. I'm not quite sure how to find it though. I think it might have been in the same segment as the stuff about going to India to see the Yogi. "Did he take you in?" "Oh yes, completely". SignatureDavid >>>>> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to >>>>> the thanks of an Ethiopian soldier)....r >>>> >>>> And before that, The Frost Report "One of the African leaders was >>>> highly Selassie, some were fairly Selassie and others weren't Selassie >>>> at all". Back in the 1950s my father was making similar jokes about the name. >>> I suppose it might have been heard on The Frost Report, but it was >>> certainly on "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > might have been in the same segment as the stuff about going to India to > see the Yogi. "Did he take you in?" "Oh yes, completely". I don't know how you remember this stuff. I heard something funny on the News Quiz last night and tried to repeat it to Husband half an hour later but had forgotten it. I remembered it briefly early this morning but by breakfast was left only with the memory that there was something I wanted to tell him. He can listen to the repeat but I'm worried about all my non-functioning neurons. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> I suppose it might have been heard on The Frost Report, but it was >>>> certainly on "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I wanted to tell him. He can listen to the repeat but I'm worried about > all my non-functioning neurons. That's easy. It was broadcast 40 years ago, when my brain still had spare capacity. SignatureDavid >>>>>> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to >>>>>> the thanks of an Ethiopian soldier)....r [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I wanted to tell him. He can listen to the repeat but I'm worried about >all my non-functioning neurons. Last night I had a telephone call from a high school and college friend that I haven't talked to in over 15 years. We sat there on the phone and pulled out names of people we haven't been around for 40-some years and re-told anecdotes from that time. Earlier today, we decided to rent a movie. My wife and I discussed which movie to rent, I went off to the supermarket*, and - by the time I got there - I forgot which movie we discussed. Had to phone home. * Several of the supermarkets around here have "Red Box" movie rental machines. Movies rent for $1 a night. It's driving the video rental stores out of business. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to >>>>>>> the thanks of an Ethiopian soldier)....r [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday and the other is closing today after a massive closing down sale. We thought about putting in a machine at one time - I've seen very few in the UK. Stephanie and I went to the theatre on Saturday evening* and I was distracted throughout the performance by trying to remember the name of a woman in the audience who I recognised and knew well, although I hadn't seen her for some years. It finally came to me as we came face to face outside. *We saw an excellent performance of Carol Ann Duffy's poems "The World's Wife". We also had posh afternoon tea at the British Museum and examined the Staffordshire Hoard. And brushed shoulders with Phill Jupitus. And, sadly, missed an opportunity to see Linz. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday and the other > is closing today after a massive closing down sale. We thought about > putting in a machine at one time - I've seen very few in the UK. A significant moment. I hope it's what you wanted. > Stephanie and I went to the theatre on Saturday evening* and I was > distracted throughout the performance by trying to remember the name of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the Staffordshire Hoard. And brushed shoulders with Phill Jupitus. And, > sadly, missed an opportunity to see Linz. Probably because she was standing behind Phill Jupitus. SignatureDavid >> That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday and the other >> is closing today after a massive closing down sale. We thought about [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Probably because she was standing behind Phill Jupitus. Indeed. I was picturing LFS on tip-toe and Phill Jupitus with bent knees. He is not a small man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phill_Jupitus He was once arrested for eating a scone while riding a unicycle naked through town in his youth. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday and the other >>> is closing today after a massive closing down sale. We thought about [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > He was once arrested for eating a scone while riding a unicycle > naked through town in his youth. Next thing you know, everything will be illegal. SignatureJames [...] >> Indeed. I was picturing LFS on tip-toe and Phill Jupitus with bent >> knees. He is not a small man. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Next thing you know, everything will be illegal. Is eating a scone considered more or less dangerous than using a mobile phone? SignatureLes (BrE) Leslie Danks: >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phill_Jupitus [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is eating a scone considered more or less dangerous than using a mobile > phone? Whatever you do, do not atishoo: Michael Mancini, from Prestwick, said he was sitting in stationary traffic with the handbrake on when he used a tissue to clean his nose. He claimed he was waved over by four police officers and given a fixed penalty for not being in proper control of his car. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8484978.stm SignatureJohn > Leslie Danks: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8484978.stm If enough people take this seriously, it will become possible to identify a car driver in a crowd by the snot all over his tie. SignatureLes (BrE) >> Leslie Danks: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If enough people take this seriously, it will become possible to identify > a car driver in a crowd by the snot all over his tie. Maybe the police suspected him of auto-erotism when he said he had just come from Prestwick. SignatureJames >Leslie Danks: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8484978.stm The policeman who did him is known locally as "Shiny Buttons". This over-zealous twerp is the one who did a disabled man for littering after he had inadvertently dropped a tenner when leaving a post office. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England John Dunlop: > Whatever you do, do not atishoo: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8484978.stm ObAUE: The BBC report quotes the driver, beginning as follows: The 39-year-old, who runs a furniture restoration business in Ayr, said: "The traffic was nose to tail in the high street and the traffic stopped and I thought that was quite a good time (to blow his nose). The use of "his" there is wrong to me -- as this is an interpolation in the quoted matter, I'd say it needs to be in the quotee's voice. As it stands, it sounds as though the man was blowing someone *else's* nose (a feat I find hard to imagine). I also consider the use of parentheses, for text that is not part of the quotation, dead wrong -- unless one is using a typewriter that does not have square brackets it. In other words, I think it should be corrected to: ... and I thought that was quite a good time [to blow my nose]. Who disagrees? SignatureMark Brader "I already checked, and there are 2147483647 Toronto natural numbers (I made a simple Java program msb@vex.net to count them)." -- Risto Lankinen My text in this article is in the public domain. >John Dunlop: >> Whatever you do, do not atishoo: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >for text that is not part of the quotation, dead wrong -- unless one is >using a typewriter that does not have square brackets it. I would assume that he was talking about the nose of a snotty-nosed brat in the seast next to him, or even in the back seat behind him, in which case I find it easy to understand that he would not be in control of the vehicle. But I also tend to make such associations when I come across one/his constructions, and do a double-take if there's no one else there. E.g. "One should not blow his nose while driving a car". I tend to assume that it has been taken out of context and the omitted preceding text would be something like, "No matter how snotty your child's nose may be..." SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > John Dunlop: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Who disagrees? Me. The explanation is the reporter's, not the speaker's. I would close quotes after "time": "... a good time," (to blow his nose). There's also just a chance that the third person was an attempt to avoid any unintended hilarity in "the traffic was nose to tail ... and I thought it was quite a good time to blow my nose". I agree that, if you put the explanation into the quoted material and use "my", brackets are better than parentheses. C.D. Bellemare: > The explanation is the reporter's, not the speaker's. I would > close quotes after "time": "... a good time," (to blow his nose). I agree that that would be a good approach. SignatureMark Brader | "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust, Toronto | means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)." msb@vex.net | -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h) On 02 Feb 2010, James Hogg wrote >>>> That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday >>>> and the other is closing today after a massive closing down [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Next thing you know, everything will be illegal. But, you see, if you let people unicycle naked through town, the next thing you know they'll want to marry their car. Or something like that. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday and the other >> is closing today after a massive closing down sale. We thought about >> putting in a machine at one time - I've seen very few in the UK. > > A significant moment. I hope it's what you wanted. It's a bit sad but it lasted two years longer than we originally anticipated and there has been a huge outpouring of goodwill - a pity it couldn't all have been translated into continuing custom! Now have to find Husband something to keep him busy and out from under my feet... >> Stephanie and I went to the theatre on Saturday evening* and I was >> distracted throughout the performance by trying to remember the name of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Probably because she was standing behind Phill Jupitus <grin> He's not quite as big as I thought, Son is taller. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>Several of the supermarkets around here have "Red Box" movie rental >> machines. Movies rent for $1 a night. It's driving the video rental >> stores out of business. >That touched a nerve: we closed one of our shops yesterday and the other >is closing today after a massive closing down sale. We thought about >putting in a machine at one time - I've seen very few in the UK. There was a fair bit of Facebook comment yesterday about the shops closing. They'll be much missed. But one person who'd gone to the closing-down sale remarked that if the queues had been like that on ordinary days, the shop wouldn't have been closing down. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> ("That's highly selassie of you"--Hawkeye Pierce, responding to the thanks of an >>> Ethiopian soldier)....r [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I suppose it might have been heard on The Frost Report, but it was >certainly on "I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again". My source is an LP I was given in my yoof. It was The Golden Hour of British Comedy. It had The Frost report, Around the Horne, The World of Beachcomber, something else I can't remember, but no ISIRTA. I discovered that wonderful show much later. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >>>> been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think I would. If only because I have no recollection of ever > encountering "high strung" in my life. I have, but only in the USA, where it initially sounded very odd, but I got used to it. > OTOH, "highly strung" seems > entirely normal to me (meaning nervous, prone to startle at sudden > noises, worrisome etc). To me also. Signatureathel [...] >> OTOH, "highly strung" seems >> entirely normal to me (meaning nervous, prone to startle at sudden >> noises, worrisome etc). > > To me also. I will believe someone says or writes "highly strung" on the day that that person swears on a stack of holy books of their choice that they would say that a coloratura soprano has a highly pitched voice. Jeez. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that person swears on a stack of holy books of their choice that they > would say that a coloratura soprano has a highly pitched voice. I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED and didn't believe them. Let's turn to "highly pitched" instead. Does it have to be a coloratura soprano, or will a reference to some other voice do? Jerome Cardan: "A Biographical Study", 1898: "My habit is to speak in a highly-pitched voice." "Punch", 1907: "saying something in a highly-pitched voice, thin in tone but thick in brogue." "Indiana Telephone News", 1929: "Our engineers have demonstrated that a low steady voice carries farther and is more powerful against conflicting sounds than a highly pitched voice." George Manville Fenn, "Burr Junior", 2008: "I listened, and Burr major was speaking sharply in a highly-pitched voice, that was all squeak, and then it descended suddenly into a gruff bass." > Jeez. SignatureJames > I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED > and didn't believe them. . . . It is scarcely to be doubted that people, often eminent language users, make mistakes, often terrible mistakes; most usage manuals deliberately take their examples of poor usage from nominally exalted sources exactly to demonstrate that point. Nor does anyone say that the citations in the OED all represent what is, or even what was then, considered good usage-- just uses that occurred. I repeat: swear to me on a stack of holy books that you yourself would be comfortable referring to someone as having a "highly pitched" voice and then we can continue. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED >> and didn't believe them. . . . [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > comfortable referring to someone as having a "highly pitched" voice and > then we can continue. I think I myself would say "high-pitched", but I would not be surprised or offended to hear someone else use "highly pitched". Conversely, I think I would more likely say "highly strung" than "high-strung". In any case, I would not deduce from my own particular usage that people who choose another variant are wrong. In other words, I do not erect my variety of English into the only correct and acceptable standard, dismissing all else as farcical. SignatureJames [...] > I think I myself would say "high-pitched", but I would not be surprised > or offended to hear someone else use "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > variety of English into the only correct and acceptable standard, > dismissing all else as farcical. From what _would_ you deduce what usage is general acceptation and what is not? As noted elsethread [here meaning elsewhere on this thread], not only is "highly strung" less than 1% of the total of it and "high- strung", a search for it actually prompts a query from Google as to whether you didn't really mean "high-strung". I'd call that pretty general acceptance. Besides which, it's not idiom: it's a question of whether "high" can reasonably be interpreted as an adverb. In this case, it cannot. "Pitched" refers to the frequency range in which the sound occurs, not to the act of casting the sound. "He pitched his voice high so as to be heard over the background din." It is impossible to construe that as wanting "highly"--since "high" is not modifying "pitched" but "voice"; the sentence is a little different, but it is the same principle. A voice pitched high is a high-pitched voice. It's the same reason we don't say "He found the rock face daunting, but by reaching highly he was able to grasp the next hold." There are I don't know how many more easy parallels: high-stepping, high- necked, high-flying, high-minded, high-powered, high-sounding, high- sticking (from hockey), high-toned, high-wrought, the aforementioned high- falutin', and possibly more. With all of those, as well as high-pitched and high-strung, it is--I repeat--farcical to suggest using "highly". SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Google as to whether you didn't really mean "high-strung". I'd call > that pretty general acceptance. In American English. > Besides which, it's not idiom: it's a question of whether "high" can > reasonably be interpreted as an adverb. In this case, it cannot. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > as well as high-pitched and high-strung, it is--I repeat--farcical to > suggest using "highly". The editors of the OED who used "highly strung" in their definitions of the words "nervous, nervy, hyper" evidently did not find it farcical. SignatureJames >> There are I don't know how many more easy parallels: high-stepping, >> high- necked, high-flying, high-minded, high-powered, high-sounding, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The editors of the OED who used "highly strung" in their definitions of >the words "nervous, nervy, hyper" evidently did not find it farcical. Just so. From the OED's definion of STRUNG: " 4. In the sense of STRING v. 3. a. Of nerves, feelings, etc.: In a state of tension. Also strung-up, and (N. Amer. slang) strung out (overlaps with sense c below). b. With prefixed adv., finely-, highly-strung: said of persons with reference to their nervous organization or condition." I've known "highly-strung" most of my life. I speak BrE, and I think of "high-strung" as AmE. I'm surprised it's arousing such a, hm, highly-strung reaction. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> There are I don't know how many more easy parallels: high-stepping, >>> high- necked, high-flying, high-minded, high-powered, high-sounding, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > of "high-strung" as AmE. I'm surprised it's arousing such a, hm, > highly-strung reaction. Eric's unduly highly-horsed on the subject. He'll just have to take our farcical words for it, and canter, loftily-quadrupeded, into the sunset, sadly shaking his head at the preposterously-vagaried character of his fellow creatures. Perhaps, like whoever it was Noel Coward mentioned as thus disqualified, he doesn't do it. SignatureMike. [...] > Eric's unduly highly-horsed on the subject. He'll just have to take our > farcical words for it, and canter, loftily-quadrupeded, into the sunset, > sadly shaking his head at the preposterously-vagaried character of his > fellow creatures. Let me repeat: high-falutin' high-flying high-minded high-necked high-pitched high-powered high-sounding high-stepping high-sticking high-strung high-toned high-wrought For which of those do you imagine "highly" can replace "high-"? All? If not all, then how and why would certain magically exempt ones be thus magical? If any speakers to sound silly by substituting "highly" in _any_ of those constructions, that is their privilege. But it remains silly. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > For which of those do you imagine "highly" can replace "high-"? At the very least: highly-pitched highly-powered highly-strung highly-wrought > All? If not all, then how and why would certain magically > exempt ones be thus magical? That remains an argument that's rooted in the proposition that consistency is a characteristic of idiomatic English usage. Take a term like "a highly-sexed person". Do you sincerely believe that, on your model, non-silly English usage demands the phrase "a high-sexed person"? If not, why not? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > If not, why not? I'm glad you asked, because therein lies the key to this whole rather simple business, which has nothing to do with any idiosyncratic inconsistency but rather with elementary grammar. There is no absolute model for "Xly Yed" versus "X-Yed". What it comes down to is whether X has a true adverbial function or is part of a compound adjective. We can try a rule-of-thumb approach: His voice is high-pitched. He has a voice that is pitched high. His voice is highly pitched. He has a voice that is pitched highly. One of those recastings makes perfect sense, the other no sense. His personality is high-strung. He has a personality that is strung high. His personality is highly pitched. He has a personality that is strung highly. ("Strung high" is awkward, but carries the sense.) His car's engine is high-powered. He has a car engine that is high in power. His car's engine is highly powered. He has a car engine that is powered highly. (In fact, the natural use is the even clearer "He has a car engine that is high-power.") And so on and so forth. But for "He has a personality that is highly sexed", we cannot back-form to an alternative "He has a high-sexed personality", and thus likewise cannot form "He is high-sexed". The crux in these cases is the extent to which "high" is perceived as simply a generic intensifier, so as to be an adverb (as in "highly sexed"), or whether it refers literally or--more commonly--metaphorically to a region or zone, in which case it is a part of the descriptive (that is, adjectival) function. Another rule-of-thumb test might be whether the "high" can be replaced one-up by "very", if not felicitously at least with sense: He is a very sexed person. She has a very pitched voice. In the second, it is clear not only that the sentence is a nonsense, but that the reason it is a nonsense is that bare "pitched" is not a reasonable qualifier of the noun "voice", whereas "sexed" is, however clumsily, a plausible qualifier of "person". (As a further example, note that a roof can indeed be described as simply "pitched", so that "a highly pitched roof" makes perfect sense, whereas a "highly pitched voice" does not.) No one, one hopes, would refer to a largely scaled map: it is large- scaled. A list of compound adjectives wherein the last element is a participle would be huge, and in almost all cases--I would have omitted the "almost" till this thread--it is obvious to all what the compounds are and why there is no adverb in them. Why these few particular examples seem to present such difficulties remains a mystery to me. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > No one, one hopes, would refer to a largely scaled map: it is large- > scaled. Another difference. I would say a "large-scale map". Google counts show that my preference far outnumbers "large-scaled map". The only OED hits are for things like large-scaled freshwater fishes or snakes. > A list of compound adjectives wherein the last element is a > participle would be huge, and in almost all cases--I would have omitted > the "almost" till this thread--it is obvious to all what the compounds > are and why there is no adverb in them. Why these few particular > examples seem to present such difficulties remains a mystery to me. As you admitted yesterday, we tend to hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest. SignatureJames [...] > Another difference. I would say a "large-scale map". Google counts show > that my preference far outnumbers "large-scaled map". Yes, the example was hastily chosen and not ideal. But the principle remains: adjectives that require two parts to make sense are compounds of individual adjectives, not a pairing of adverb-with-adjective. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > compounds of individual adjectives, not a pairing of > adverb-with-adjective. What about "well-made"? Let's take the phrase "a well-made sword" and examine it according to your principle. It's an adjective. Here I agree. It requires both parts to make sense. Here I agree. At least, I can't think of any context where I would say "a made sword". It's a compound of individual adjectives. Here I would have to disagree. I think it's a pairing of adverb-with-adjective. SignatureJames [...] >> . . . But the principle remains: adjectives that require two parts to >> make sense are compounds of individual adjectives, not a pairing of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It's a compound of individual adjectives. Here I would have to disagree. > I think it's a pairing of adverb-with-adjective. The occasional exception is always going to arise with rules of thumb, which is what I presented those ideas as: There is no absolute model for "Xly Yed" versus "X-Yed". What it comes down to is whether X has a true adverbial function or is part of a compound adjective. We can try a rule-of-thumb approach . . . . "The sword is made well." That is a satisfactory statement, whereas "Her voice is pitched highly" is not (nor is "His personality is strung highly"); that is why one can be turned about and the others not. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [...] > The editors of the OED who used "highly strung" in their definitions of > the words "nervous, nervy, hyper" evidently did not find it farcical. My print copy of the OED shows no such uses. Are you perhaps referring to some usage citations? I didn't go through all of them, but didn't see the usage even there. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > referring to some usage citations? I didn't go through all of > them, but didn't see the usage even there. It's in the current definitions, not the citations. An example, under "nervous" and "nervy": (quotes)> [nervous] 9. a. Of a person or temperament: excitable, highly strung, easily agitated, anxious, timid; hypersensitive; worried, anxious (about); afraid, apprehensive (of). [nervy] II. Senses relating to nervousness. 4. Excitable, highly strung, easily agitated; worried, anxious; = NERVOUS adj. 9. (/quote) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed HVS filted: >[nervy] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >(/quote) For the record, "nervy" doesn't have that meaning here...it would be taken as a synonym for "brash"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My print copy of the OED shows no such uses. Look in the print edition under "strung", definition 4.b. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] > Look in the print edition under "strung", definition 4.b. Perhaps, then, that is simply British idiom (and still silly). I just posted an extensive answer to your previously posted question "Do you sincerely believe that, on your model, non-silly English usage demands the phrase 'a high-sexed person'? If not, why not?" I hope and believe that it makes definitively clear what the issues here are. (It's date-stamped 00:10:54 UTC, for reference.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ On 26 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (It's date-stamped 00:10:54 UTC, for reference.) Your grammmatical explanation makes sense insofar as it explains why you would argue against using the form "highly-strung". I'm afraid it offers no support for your original contention -- the point that was being challenged -- that "highly-strung" effectively is not used in standard English. To return to that point, a google books search for works published between 1700 and 2000 turns up 3,430 hits for "high strung", and 2,130 for "highly strung". On that measure, the latter does not appear to be at all unusual (and no, I do not accept that all 2,130 cases were either incompetently written or examples of silly usage). SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > no, I do not accept that all 2,130 cases were either incompetently > written or examples of silly usage). Here are two interesting extracts from Google Books to illustrate the perfectly natural variation between predicative "highly strung" and attributive "high-strung": Meet Mr. Hyphen and Put Him in His Place By Edward Nelson Teall, 1937: "Whether one chooses to write /high strung/, /high-strung/, or /highstrung/, the two words constitute, in attributive position, a single modifier equivalent to the syntactic form /highly strung/ but not separated in the mind of speaker or writer, hearer or reader." The Return of Dr. Fu-Manchu By Sax Rohmer, 1916: "So wore on the night; and, when the ticking clock hollowly boomed the hour of one, I almost leaped our of my chair, so highly strung were my nerves, and so appallingly did the sudden clangor beat upon them. Smith, like a man of stone, showed no sign. He was capable of so subduing his constitutionally high-strung temperament, at times, that temporarily he became immune from human dreads." SignatureJames On 26 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >> To return to that point, a google books search for works >> published between 1700 and 2000 turns up 3,430 hits for "high [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > high-strung temperament, at times, that temporarily he became > immune from human dreads." I'm not strong on the terminology, but where does that place usages like Conan Doyle's "I determined to say nothing about the former to my wife, for she is a nervous, highly strung woman..."? Isn't that a respectable and natural attributive use of "highly strung"? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Isn't that a respectable and natural attributive use of "highly > strung"? Yes. SignatureJames [...] > I'm not strong on the terminology, but where does that place usages like > Conan Doyle's "I determined to say nothing about the former to my wife, > for she is a nervous, highly strung woman..."? > > Isn't that a respectable and natural attributive use of "highly strung"? I have already conceded that somewhere along the line this peculiar usage seems to have crept into idiomatic BrE. But frequency of occurrence of an off form does not in itself legitimize that form, else "hand me them tools" would have become standard centuries ago. I repeat that the difference is fairly clearly shown by the difference between "a highly pitched roof" and "a highly strung person": a pitched roof is a comprehensible thing, but a strung person is not. When "highly" means generically "very much", and is applied to an adjective that can stand on its own two legs, all is well; but when "high" refers to a metaphorical zone (and "high-pitched" is a metaphor derived from the tension in an instrument string that is tautened to make a sound high in pitch), and the adjective totters about when left on its own, then what is wanted is the compound adjective with "high-" as a prefix. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have already conceded that somewhere along the line this peculiar usage > seems to have crept into idiomatic BrE. Or it has slipped out of AmE. > But frequency of occurrence of > an off form does not in itself legitimize that form, else "hand me them > tools" would have become standard centuries ago. "Highly strung" is not an "off form" in BrE. > I repeat that the difference is fairly clearly shown by the difference > between "a highly pitched roof" and "a highly strung person": a pitched [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pitch), and the adjective totters about when left on its own, then what > is wanted is the compound adjective with "high-" as a prefix. See my other reply. SignatureJames > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Or it has slipped out of AmE. I looked a while at Google Books, and it tends to show* that "high-strung" is older then "highly strung" (I'm ignoring hyphens here). And the old "high-strung" was British (I assume American also, no evidence yet). I hunted in particular for what it meant before it was a figure of speech. What objects were said to be strung high, and what did it mean? Before it referred to nerves, minds, health, etc. So far, I found: instruments, harps, and frame. "Frame" makes me think of a loom, but I don't see any direct evidence. I suppose what is "high" is tension, although nobody says so. What I'd like to find is something exactly like "well-tempered clavier." Example of old use of "high strung": The Gentleman's magazine, Volume 24 Author John Nichols Publisher E. Cave, 1754 [The Gentleman's Magazine was founded in London, England, by Edward Cave in January, 1731] With rich perfumes our locks imbu'd, Our inftruments high ftrung; Perplexing cares that would intrude, Let wine's, let mufic's charms exclude. A use of it to refer to humans: James Thomson 1700-1748, Scottish poet: ... See ! how the younglings frisk along the meads, " As May comes on, and wakes the balmy wind ; Rampant with life, their joy all joy exceeds : Yet: what but high-strung health this dancing pleafaunce breeds! *Dates in Google Books are so often wrong. Just this evening, I found a book it dated 1832 which from its content had to be 1882, and another one dated 1803 which had stuff from 1820 and which turned out be from 1863. So this is a dicey business. "Highly strung" kicks in sometime in the 19th century, but given the problem I'm having with years, I hate to give an early citation... God in heaven, here's another one, marked 1809 but actually from 1899. I've sent Google Books notice on the other two but this is trying my patience. Now, here's a switch -- another book, said to be 1808, must be wrong, but at least someone posted a "review" with the line: "Year published is incorrect - should be 1898." That was kind of them. I can now safely say that Google Books has no examples of "highly strung" before 1820, but I don't know when it truly starts. SignatureBest - Donna Richoux [...] > I looked a while at Google Books, and it tends to show* that > "high-strung" is older then "highly strung" (I'm ignoring hyphens [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > their joy all joy exceeds : Yet: what but high-strung health this > dancing pleafaunce breeds! Nice research. I think these quotations suggest rather strongly that the use derives, as I suggested earlier, from the strings on an instrument: the strings under the most tension produce the highest notes. Thus, in "high-strung", "high" is an adjective referring to the range in which the note sounds. > I can now safely say that Google Books has no examples of "highly > strung" before 1820, but I don't know when it truly starts. It is probably coincident with the rise of interest in systematic grammar that began in the later 19th century, and whose overt expression began with the Fowler brothers. Someone, I'd wager, hyper-corrected and it stuck to the wall. "Whom is it?" asked Cyril, for he had been to night school. -- Anthony Powell SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> I can now safely say that Google Books has no examples of "highly >> strung" before 1820, but I don't know when it truly starts. > > It is probably coincident with the rise of interest in systematic > grammar that began in the later 19th century, Unfortunately, it seems to be earlier than that. A want of unison, arising from hearts and minds too highly strung, is the fountain of the poet's proverbial unhappiness--full even to overflowing. _The United States Literary Gazette_, June 1, 1825. I see another verifiable hit from 1827, one in 1830, and a number in the first half of the 1830s. Walter Scott used it in _Castle Dangerous_ (1832). I'd guess that that's about when it started to becom somewhat common. > and whose overt expression began with the Fowler brothers. Seems to be at least thirty years older than the elder of the two. > Someone, I'd wager, hyper-corrected and it stuck to the wall. Probably. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took |place (the morning of May 5, 1450, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |at some time between neenuh fiftehn (650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv). | Kevin Wald http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the phrase 'a high-sexed person'? If not, why not?" I hope and believe > that it makes definitively clear what the issues here are. Yes. We've been trying to tell you it's British idiom since the start of the week. I'm glad you've finally noticed. Once you've recognised it as idiom, the "and still silly" remark is pointless. All idiom is, to some extent, silly. If it was regular and logical it wouldn't be idiom. Get over it. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk Eric Walker: > As noted elsethread [here meaning elsewhere on this thread], > not only is "highly strung" less than 1% of the total of it and "high- > strung", a search for it actually prompts a query from Google as to > whether you didn't really mean "high-strung". Here's what Google gives me for "high-strung" and "highly strung": 485 000 for "high-strung" 205 000 for "highly strung" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22high-strung%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+strung%22 The Corpus of Contemporary American English (400 million words) has 201 occurrences of "high-strung" (32 without the hyphen) and 8 of "highly strung". http://www.americancorpus.org/ The British National Corpus (100 million words) has 37 occurrences of "highly strung" but none of "high-strung", with or without the hyphen. http://bnc.bl.uk/saraWeb.php?qy=high-strung SignatureJohn > Eric Walker: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22high-strung%22 > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22highly+strung%22 I see what happened: I actually was using the phrase "high-pitched" (and its variants), as logged farther below in this post. (That phrase had also arisen in the discussions earlier.) Sorry; but read on. With any of this sort, the use of quotation marks seems to make a huge difference: high-strung : 5,300,000 "high-strung" : 500,000 high-pitched : 2,830,000 "high-pitched" : 1,930,000 Yet, just looking at the tops of the results, there seems scarcely any difference in what is returned. Ah, Google. (It appears to me as if for hyphenated terms Google treats the hyphens as blank spaces but acts as if the hyphenated words were in quotation marks as a phrase; but who can be sure?) Of course, Google's performances are always mysterious: searching for "highly strung" (with marks) gives me 247,000; but when I add the term -Orianthi (apparently some person or group who recorded a song using the phrase), which should clearly _reduce_ the hit count, I get 1,020,000 hits. Go figure . . . . Note also that while one cannot comb through hundreds of thousands of uses, the search for "highly strung" (which must use quotation marks) turns up, at least near the top of the list, numerous references to guitars, where the participle has a different sense than in the phrase "high-strung". Here are the full results with "pitched": high-pitched : 2,830,000 "high-pitched" : 1,930,000 "high pitched" : 1,930,000 "highly pitched" : 27,000 And with "strung": high-strung : 5,300,000 "high-strung" : 500,000 "high strung" : 504,000 "highly strung" : 247,000 So, while it seems much depends on what the quotation marks mean to Google, it also seems that at very worst the adjectival compound exceeds the adverbial combination by 2:1, but with a strong suggestion that it in fact actually exceeds it by more than 21:1. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ <snip> >I think I myself would say "high-pitched", but I would not be surprised >or offended to hear someone else use "highly pitched". I believe the usual expression is "high-pitched". >Conversely, I think I would more likely say "highly strung" than >"high-strung". You're beating a dead horse. See Rey Aman's survey in today's AUE traffic. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > >> I think I myself would say "high-pitched", but I would not be surprised >> or offended to hear someone else use "highly pitched". > > I believe the usual AmE > expression is "high-pitched". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >AmE Oh? >> expression is "high-pitched". Google lists 72,700 instances of high-pitched from sites with a UK domain name. To disprove it is not an AmE spelling, as you state, I didn't think it necessary to check other English language ones. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > domain name. To disprove it is not an AmE spelling, as you state, I > didn't think it necessary to check other English language ones. I'm not sure whether "high-pitched" is AmE or not, but that number doesn't seem like enough on its own to refute the theory. Google shows 141,000 hits for "diaper", 782,000 hits for "theater", and 880,000 for "defense" with "site:.uk". >> >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >141,000 hits for "diaper", 782,000 hits for "theater", and 880,000 for >"defense" with "site:.uk". Ratios are what matter, not the fact that many, many terms are more popular than high-pitched or highly pitched. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:25:49 -0800 (PST), "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Ratios are what matter, not the fact that many, many terms are more > popular than high-pitched or highly pitched. I agree, and would have found a ratio much more compelling than a single number. >>> I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED >>> and didn't believe them. . . . [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I think I myself would say "high-pitched", but I would not be surprised >or offended to hear someone else use "highly pitched". Ditto. >Conversely, I think I would more likely say "highly strung" than >"high-strung". Ditto. To me "highly strung" was the most common form when I was growing up in southeastern England. >In any case, I would not deduce from my own particular usage that people >who choose another variant are wrong. In other words, I do not erect my >variety of English into the only correct and acceptable standard, >dismissing all else as farcical. Another ditto. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED >>>> and didn't believe them. . . . [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Another ditto. What James and Peter said. Before reading this thread, I had never before heard "high-strung", only "highly-strung", and it had never struck me as anomalous. I wondered if it was a pondian difference but I read a great many US authors and watch quite a bit of US TV and have never noticed it. (For MM fans: it's possible that Don used the expression in discussing Betty with her psychiatrist but I can't check the DVD at the moment. Series 3 this week!) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED >> and didn't believe them. . . . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > OED all represent what is, or even what was then, considered good usage-- > just uses that occurred. In this case the "mistake" is using an adverb to modify a verb, where you would prefer using an adjective to modify the verb. I can't help wondering who made the mistake. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > I repeat: swear to me on a stack of holy books that you yourself would be > comfortable referring to someone as having a "highly pitched" voice and > then we can continue. I can't do that, because I don't have any books that I consider to be holy. Would you accept an affirmation? I hereby affirm that I find the phrase "highly pitched voice" to be perfectly normal usage; and, furthermore, that I find "high-pitched voice" to be a grossly ungrammatical attempt to use "high" where we would normally expect an adverb. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> I repeat: swear to me on a stack of holy books that you yourself would be >> comfortable referring to someone as having a "highly pitched" voice and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >voice" to be a grossly ungrammatical attempt to use "high" where we >would normally expect an adverb. For whatever reasons, my own usage is "highly-strung" and "high-pitched". Sans and avec hyphen (Australians are laid-back, informal or sloppy when it comes to those little horizontals). As usual, Australian usage is somewhere between British and American. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>> I repeat: swear to me on a stack of holy books that you yourself >>> would be comfortable referring to someone as having a "highly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > As usual, Australian usage is somewhere between British and American. English allows variation in these constructions. I googled to see what tennis players and archers say about the stringing of their implements. I found "tight-strung" and "tightly strung" bows and rackets, in both attributive and predicative uses. The adjective occurs in Anne Frank's diary, where both translations have "tightly strung": "accusations which are leveled at me repeatedly every day, and find their mark, like shafts from a tightly strung bow and which are just as hard to draw from my body." "accusations that she hurls at me day after day, piercing me like arrows from a tightly strung bow, which are nearly as impossible to pull from my body." SignatureJames >> I presume you have seen my quotations of "highly strung" from the OED >> and didn't believe them. . . . [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > comfortable referring to someone as having a "highly pitched" voice and > then we can continue. This really is complete and utter bilge you know. If you won't swear in a similar way that that you'd never describe someone as "light fingered" I won't believe that anything can be "lightly emphasised". What? I really can't work out if you are running a monumental troll here, or what. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > I really can't work out if you are running a monumental troll here, or what. If it were monumental it would be written in a more lapidary style. SignatureJames [...] > This really is complete and utter bilge you know. If you won't swear in > a similar way that that you'd never describe someone as "light fingered" > I won't believe that anything can be "lightly emphasised". What? > > I really can't work out if you are running a monumental troll here, or > what. I don't normally do this, but to avoid just referring to another post, I will repeat most of it here. Perhaps you will come to see what view is bilge and what isn't; or perhaps not--I can only lead the horse to the water. ----------------- There is no absolute model for "Xly Yed" versus "X-Yed". What it comes down to is whether X has a true adverbial function or is part of a compound adjective. We can try a rule-of-thumb approach: His voice is high-pitched. He has a voice that is pitched high. His voice is highly pitched. He has a voice that is pitched highly. One of those recastings makes perfect sense, the other no sense. His personality is high-strung. He has a personality that is strung high. His personality is highly strung. He has a personality that is strung highly. ("Strung high" is awkward, but carries the sense.) His car's engine is high-powered. He has a car engine that is high in power. His car's engine is highly powered. He has a car engine that is powered highly. (In fact, the natural use is the even clearer "He has a car engine that is high-power.") And so on and so forth. But for "He has a personality that is highly sexed", we cannot back-form to an alternative "He has a high-sexed personality", and thus likewise cannot form "He is high-sexed". [The form "highly sexed" was put forth in the post to which this was a response.] The crux in these cases is the extent to which "high" is perceived as simply a generic intensifier, so as to be an adverb (as in "highly sexed"), or whether it refers literally or--more commonly--metaphorically to a region or zone, in which case it is a part of the descriptive (that is, adjectival) function. Another rule-of-thumb test might be whether the "high" can be replaced one-up by "very", if not felicitously at least with sense: He is a very sexed person. She has a very pitched voice. In the second, it is clear not only that the sentence is a nonsense, but that the reason it is a nonsense is that bare "pitched" is not a reasonable qualifier of the noun "voice", whereas "sexed" is, however clumsily, a plausible qualifier of "person". (As a further example, note that a roof can indeed be described as simply "pitched", so that "a highly pitched roof" makes perfect sense, whereas a "highly pitched voice" does not.) No one, one hopes, would refer to a largely scaled map: it is large- scaled. A list of compound adjectives wherein the last element is a participle would be huge, and in almost all cases--I would have omitted the "almost" till this thread--it is obvious to all what the compounds are and why there is no adverb in them. The apparently common (in the isles) British forms using "highly' must, I suppose, be written off as a silly example of hyper-correction that became embalmed as idiom (which, by definition, ignores grammar and, usually, common sense.) ----------------- And, to answer more directly, "emphasized" is a perfectly normal adjective by itself, so that "lightly emphasized is a reasonable form; but "fingered" is not--saving some bizarrely contorted artificial context--a natural and normal adjective by itself, so that in "light- fingered" a compounded adjective is needed. No, this is not a monumental troll: it is a monumental--indeed, Sisyphean--effort to persuade people that both grammar and basic common sense have not yet utterly lost their applicability to English. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeez. That's utterly bonkers. I do the former, have never heard "high strung" but will not do the latter because I wouldn't. If you want to spend the rest of your life believing me to be making things up, go ahead and do it! You'd be wrong, though. It's an ideomatic phrase, it just happens to be one with two variations. After all, no-one is actually being strung here. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that they would say that a coloratura soprano has a highly > pitched voice. That argument relies on a presumption that the usage of native English speakers remains consistent between words and phrases, and last time I checked that wasn't a very sound presumption. (I'm on the list of "both versions sound normal".) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > (I'm on the list of "both versions sound normal".) And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". SignatureJames On 25 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >> On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". A bing search turns up a couple of hundred hits for "highly-pitched voice"; at first glance, they don't look like dialect or illiterate uses. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] > A bing search turns up a couple of hundred hits for "highly-pitched > voice"; at first glance, they don't look like dialect or illiterate > uses. Well, Google shows that as between "high-pitched" and "highly pitched", the latter is less than 1% of occurrences. In fact, when one does the search for "highly pitched", Google queries 'Did you mean: "high pitched"?' And the occurrences include such as "Fluid Dynamics of Highly Pitched and Yawed Jets in Crossflow" and "Saddle type highly pitched form fitting grip", in which "pitch" has a quite different meaning. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. --"The Boxer", Simon & Garfunkel SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > search for "highly pitched", Google queries 'Did you mean: "high > pitched"?' You're using an American Google server, I presume? When I do the search from here, "highly pitched" slightly outnumbers "high-pitched". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You're using an American Google server, I presume? When I do the search > from here, "highly pitched" slightly outnumbers "high-pitched". Have you tried a Google comparison of the frequency of these expressions: "between him and me" "between he and I" SignatureJames >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "between he and I" Depressing. I take heart, however, from the fact that the first hit for "between he and I" contains an explanation for why it is wrong. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "between he and I" May I raise a small cheer for Portillo? Several times, when talking about his family visits to his grandparents' home in Kircaldy, he used phrases such as "It was always exciting for my brothers and me", and "The house seemed huge to my brothers and me". SignatureDavid On 25 Jan 2010, Eric Walker wrote > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > when one does the search for "highly pitched", Google queries > 'Did you mean: "high pitched"?' Well, you're changing goalposts, of course. The part you snipped was your challenge to the very idea that anyone would *ever* write "highly-pitched voice"; it implied the absolute non-existence of such a usage in idiomatic speech, rather than rarity. Google returns a couple of hundred hits for "highly-pitched voice", and now your point appears to be that it can be considered very rare -- a point no one is disputing. And my initial point stands: your use of the example of "highly- pitched voice" to dismiss the usage of "highly-strung" relies on the a presumption of consistency in English usage that simply doesn't stand up to examination. [...] > Well, you're changing goalposts, of course. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > now your point appears to be that it can be considered very rare -- a > point no one is disputing. I have come round to the view, expressed in another post here, that in the British Isles some nit's hyper-correction made at some unknowable time somehow got embalmed as idiom, though--for once--the bad form seems to be losing its hold. > And my initial point stands: your use of the example of "highly- > pitched voice" to dismiss the usage of "highly-strung" relies on the a > presumption of consistency in English usage that simply doesn't stand up > to examination. As I posted elsethread, it has nothing to do with any "artificial" consistency: it is sheer grammar and logic. I would, though, point out that the usual rules for hyphenation do not want one where the first part of the compound is visibly an adverb: "highly pitched", not "highly-pitched". The difference is relevant to the point here: hyphens help distinguish between adverb-adjective pairs and compound adjectives: . a yellow window envelope [where "window envelope" is a a type of business envelope with a window, "window" thus being an adjective, and the adverbial--because not hyphentated--"yellow" telling us what color the envelope is, though not specifying the color of that envelope] . a yellow-window envelope [where the compound adjective tells us that the reference is to an envelope, of unspecified color, with a yellow window] (The _Chicago_, in making this point, uses the perhaps even better example of "a fast sailing ship" versus "a fast-sailing ship".) When the adverb follows the usual English pattern of ending in -ly (or is otherwise manifestly what it is, as with "much"), the hyphen is not needed because we already know that the lead word is an adverb (though there are always those pesky adjectives that end in -ly). (I admit that I am often guilty of hyphenating after "much", as in "much- wanted"; I need to be more careful.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [...] > And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". Like my books; but still, few buy them. "Buy or die!" <--- high pitch http://aman.members.sonic.net/pricelist_order.html Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ > [...] >> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://aman.members.sonic.net/pricelist_order.html Shouldn't that read "Ordure Form"? SignatureJames >> [...] >>> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Shouldn't that read "Ordure Form"? Your quip comes about 20 years too late. I used "Ordure Form" for many years for the amusement of my clients in 87 countries. -- ~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ Non olet >>> [...] >>>> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Your quip comes about 20 years too late. I used "Ordure Form" for many > years for the amusement of my clients in 87 countries. That shows how long it is since I ordered anything from you. SignatureJames >>>> [...] >>>>> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That shows how long it is since I ordered anything from you. Instead of another gratuitous crack, I was hoping for an admission of your possible error regarding the popularity and usage of "high-strung" vs "highly strung". Oh well. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> [...] >>>>>> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > your possible error regarding the popularity and usage of > "high-strung" vs "highly strung". Oh well. As you can see from other responses, "highly strung" is the most popular form in British English. And Rey drew the correct conclusion when he wrote: "He has been *highly strung* all his life." is -- based on your, Nick's, and James's replies -- perfect *British* English and *Australian* English. As for the gratuitous crack, I'm not sure what you mean. Rey used to call his order forms "ordure forms" back in the days when I last saw one of them. SignatureJames >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >call his order forms "ordure forms" back in the days when I last saw one >of them. I got the impression you were dismissing Rey's data because it showed one of your statements to be wrong, but today I can't determine why I thought that. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> [...] >>>> And a roof can be either "high-pitched" or "highly pitched". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Your quip comes about 20 years too late. I used "Ordure Form" for many >years for the amusement of my clients in 87 countries. I once changed an "Out of Order" notice on a toilet. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has been >> high-strung all his life?" > > Neither. Highly strung, without the hyphen. This American wouldn't use "highly strung." I would think "high-strung" would be hyphenated. >> For that matter, would one write "These >> people have been ill served by the system in the past"? > > Yes. Well served, ill served, fairly served, unjustly served. poorly > served: a hyphen would be wrong in any of those. I'm with Mr. Moylan on this. The people may be "ill-served" but once the ill service is attributed to "the system," it doesn't bear hyphenation. --Jeff SignatureIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? --Friedrich Nietzsche >> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >> been high-strung all his life?" > > Neither. Highly strung, without the hyphen. Main Entry: high–strung Pronunciation: \ˈhī-ˈstrəŋ\ Function: adjective Date: 1748 : having an extremely nervous or sensitive temperament >> For that matter, would one write "These >> people have been ill served by the system in the past"? > > Yes. Well served, ill served, fairly served, unjustly served. poorly > served: a hyphen would be wrong in any of those. Yup. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He >>> has been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > : having an extremely nervous or sensitive temperament I find "highly strung" in "The American Monthly Magazine" for 1837. Evidently it hasn't always been considered "farcical" over there. It's always interesting to see how people react to things that are not dreamt of in their philosophy, how "I have never heard it" becomes "It cannot possibly exist". SignatureJames > Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has > been high-strung all his life?" If he was, he probably had a short life and a long neck. Try "highly strung". SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >> been high-strung all his life?" > > If he was, he probably had a short life and a long neck. Try "highly > strung". Um, look upthread . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >> been high-strung all his life?" > > If he was, he probably had a short life and a long neck. Try "highly > strung". [Apologies. There's been much water under the bridge since I wrote that post some days ago. I just found it still stuck in my outbox, and it wouldn't send until I re-edited it.] SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> Would one write "He has been high strung all his life?" Or "He has >>> been high-strung all his life?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >post some days ago. I just found it still stuck in my outbox, and it >wouldn't send until I re-edited it.] It was obviously so highly strung that it was nervous about venturing out into the harsh world of AUE. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.