 |
 | 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 / British English / November 2006Stringing together nouns
Are there any rules that govern the stringing together of nouns in English? Example: "Foot" + "ball" + "player" = "football player", not "footballplayer" or "foot ball player". Example: "Post" + "man" = "postman" (one word), but "post" + "office" = "post office" (two words). In particular, I am currently trying to choose between "phonebook" (22.6 million hits on Google) and "phone book" (25.4 million hits on Google). Do I have complete freedom in making this choice? -- Claus Tondering > Are there any rules that govern the stringing together of nouns in > English? Possibly. > Example: "Foot" + "ball" + "player" = "football player", not > "footballplayer" or "foot ball player". The concept of the game is a far more frequently used concept than that of a player of the game, which is perhaps why "football" became accepted as a compound word while "footballplayer" doesn't stand a chance, especially when there is a slightly more snappy term "footballer" already in existence. > Example: "Post" + "man" = "postman" (one word), but "post" + "office" = > "post office" (two words). My theory may be breaking down already. Perhaps it is more to do with the fact that a post office says "Post Office" on it, so it was effectively cast in stone, while "postman" is probably how people, as distinct from an organisation, referred to someone who delivers mail. In these politically correct days you should probably use a gender-neutral term such as "postie", although "postwoman" and "post lady" exist. I don't think anyone uses "post officer", which sounds far too officious and would definitely be kept as two separate words, but I am not sure why. > In particular, I am currently trying to choose between "phonebook" > (22.6 million hits on Google) and "phone book" (25.4 million hits on > Google). Do I have complete freedom in making this choice? Google is no guide to correctness, only popularity. Collins' English Dictionary believes that the term should be two separate words. Incidentally, you never raised the possibility of hyphenation of the two-word forms, but I'll leave someone else to screw the lid back on to that particular can of worms. > > Are there any rules that govern the stringing together of nouns in > > English? [Snip] > > In particular, I am currently trying to choose between "phonebook" > > (22.6 million hits on Google) and "phone book" (25.4 million hits > > on Google). Do I have complete freedom in making this choice? > Google is no guide to correctness, only popularity. Collins' English > Dictionary believes that the term should be two separate words. As issued by BT: The Phone Book. It used to be a telephone directory.  SignatureDavid - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/ > My theory may be breaking down already. Perhaps it is more to do > with the fact that a post office says "Post Office" on it, so it was > effectively cast in stone, It appears to be set in stone as a registered trade mark now, and frequently occurs with initial capitals and the [TM] sign throughout passages of text - mainly those generated by the Post Office [TM], admittedly, but it does tend to look incongruous in "I'm just popping down to the Post Office[TM]." SignatureAlan Pemberton Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England To e-mail me directly, please visit <http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me> >> My theory may be breaking down already. Perhaps it is more to do >> with the fact that a post office says "Post Office" on it, so it was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > admittedly, but it does tend to look incongruous in "I'm just popping > down to the Post Office[TM]." It wouldn't say "TM" if it was a registered trademark - you would use (R), ® if that comes out. You use "TM" for unregistered trademarks (the Patent Office (two words) prefer trade mark (two words), but I prefer the one-word form). SignatureJohn Briggs 18:48, domenica 15 ottobre 2006, John Briggs: >>> My theory may be breaking down already. Perhaps it is more >>> to do with the fact that a post office says "Post Office" on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > *prefer* trade mark (two words), but I prefer the one-word > form). Is "prefer" correct? I'd write "prefers", (third person singular). Right? Or is "the Patent Office" a plural subject? (I'm Italian, a doubter Italian; or a dubious Italian, I don't know. :-) Signature°¿° > 18:48, domenica 15 ottobre 2006, John Briggs: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > (I'm Italian, a doubter Italian; or a dubious Italian, I don't > know. :-) Would you call the Patent Office "them" or "it"? You generally have a choice with institutions - is the government singular or plural? SignatureJohn Briggs > > 18:48, domenica 15 ottobre 2006, John Briggs: > >> It wouldn't say "TM" if it was a registered trademark - you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (I'm Italian, a doubter Italian; or a dubious Italian, I don't > > know. :-) I think you meant "doubtful" or "doubting". > Would you call the Patent Office "them" or "it"? You generally have a > choice with institutions - is the government singular or plural? I believe the tendency is for British English to give institutions a plural verb, and for American English to use the singular. Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >I believe the tendency is for British English to give institutions a >plural verb, and for American English to use the singular. There's not a great deal of logic to what we do in British English. We tend to say "the English football team is useless" but "England are useless", even though referring to the same set of eleven players (plus substitutes) in both cases. SignatureJohn Hall "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." Oscar Wilde >> I believe the tendency is for British English to give institutions a >> plural verb, and for American English to use the singular. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > useless", even though referring to the same set of eleven players > (plus substitutes) in both cases. At one time, whether "the government" was singular or plural in official documents depended on whether the government was Conservative or Labour :-) -- John Briggs |There's not a great deal of logic to what we do in British English. We |tend to say "the English football team is useless" but "England are |useless", even though referring to the same set of eleven players (plus |substitutes) in both cases. Now, I see a distiction between the two. "The English football team" would, to me, mean the players themselves. However, "England" could encompass the team, manager, assistant manager, physio, trainer, management, organisers, press officer, administrators, publicity team, etc. -- Pontins History E-Mail: usenet@pontinshistory.co.uk Please visit www.pontinshistory.co.uk Skype ID (instant messaging and video calls): howie10 > Are there any rules that govern the stringing together of nouns in > English? The general progression seems to be two words > hyphenated > one word. eg: on line > on-line > online Hyphens cause problems: dictionaries swear that steam-engine is correct, which will come as news to most steam engine enthusiasts. famous example: hair-remover seems OK, but what about superfluous hair-remover? (Which is obviously hair-remover that no one wants...) SignatureJohn Briggs 15:10, giovedì 12 ottobre 2006, claus.tondering@gmail.com: > Are there any rules that govern the stringing together of > nouns in English? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (25.4 million hits on Google). Do I have complete freedom in > making this choice? Maybe the number of syllables has some relevance? "Man" is one syllable long, "office" is two syllables long. Signature°¿° ADPUF schrieb: > 15:10, giovedì 12 ottobre 2006, claus.tondering@gmail.com: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Maybe the number of syllables has some relevance? > "Man" is one syllable long, "office" is two syllables long. As a teacher of english as a foreign language IK do use such a rule of thumb - one syllable nouns in regular combinations are written as one word, whereas if one of the nouns has more than one syllable they are written separately. There are however many exceptions to this rule. For adjectives the rule is slightly different - if two words form a compound adjective it is usually hyphenated. However there alos seem to be numerous exceöptions to this rule. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan "Einde O'Callaghan" wrote in message However there alos seem to be numerous exceöptions to this rule. But of course.............it is "English" we are talking about!! :-)) Faith > Example: "Post" + "man" = "postman" (one word), but "post" + "office" = > "post office" (two words). Post impressionist, but postmodernist... >> Example: "Post" + "man" = "postman" (one word), but "post" + "office" = >> "post office" (two words). > >Post impressionist, but postmodernist... Teapot, teacup, teacake but tea bag, tea break, tea cosy, tea cosy, tea leaf, tea lady, tea-bread, tea-ball (according to COD). Show business but showbiz. The only comfort to learners of English is that we're hopelessly confused too. SignaturePhil C. >>> Example: "Post" + "man" = "postman" (one word), but "post" + >>> "office" = "post office" (two words). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > business but showbiz. The only comfort to learners of English is that > we're hopelessly confused too. I wouldn't rely on the COD - they insist on steam-engine. SignatureJohn Briggs I was saddened to find on revisiting this group after a long absence that it appears to be moribund. Perhaps an appeal for help will bring some of you to the edges of your seats again . . . but then again, perhaps not. Nonetheless, here goes: Last week I had occasion to visit my brother, with whom I have had negligible intercourse for more than 30 years. Pottering around his garden on a glorious autumn afternoon, we fell to recalling a wealth of childhood experiences. One of these was the tasks our father allotted to us; mine was edging the grass pathways and lawns with a ritter. My brother hasn't got a ritter, so later I did a quick Google search to see if I could buy one for him online - it was his birthday after all. But Google professed never to have heard the term, and I wonder if anyone else recognizes this name for a semicircular lawn edging tool? Witnessing some minor catastrophe down near the compost heap, my brother suddenly burst out with one of our father's favourite exclamations: "Well, gutter my tea!" Again, no trace in Google. Was this just a family thing? Or has anyone else come across it? My father hailed from the West Riding, but spent most of his life in North Lincolnshire. "Childhood" in our case refers to the 1950s. SignatureNoel >I was saddened to find on revisiting this group after a long absence > that it appears to be moribund. Perhaps an appeal for help will bring > some of you to the edges of your seats again . . . but then again, > perhaps not. Nonetheless, here goes: It would have helped if you had started a new thread, rather than hijacked a completely unrelated thread, however... > Last week I had occasion to visit my brother, with whom I have had > negligible intercourse for more than 30 years. Pottering around his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Google professed never to have heard the term, and I wonder if anyone > else recognizes this name for a semicircular lawn edging tool? Nope. I've always known it as a half-moon lawn edging tool. > Witnessing some minor catastrophe down near the compost heap, my brother > suddenly burst out with one of our father's favourite exclamations: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My father hailed from the West Riding, but spent most of his life in > North Lincolnshire. "Childhood" in our case refers to the 1950s. It's new to me, despite my mother-in-law's family hailing from the Dewsbury-Huddersfield area. I hope you and your brother enjoy your rejuvenated relationship. At 10:59:39 on Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Nick Wagg <naw@transcendata.com> wrote in <ehko4r$s9g$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>: >Nope. I've always known it as a half-moon lawn edging tool. Yes, that's the name my family used for it too. SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > One of these was the tasks our father allotted to >us; mine was edging the grass pathways and lawns with a ritter. My >brother hasn't got a ritter, so later I did a quick Google search to see >if I could buy one for him online - it was his birthday after all. But >Google professed never to have heard the term, and I wonder if anyone >else recognizes this name for a semicircular lawn edging tool? I can't imagine that the edging of lawns had much of a place in popular folk culture - except perhaps for those employed by the gentry. A special tool would have been out of reach. I expect most just used a spade for edging - as we did when I was a child. This would have created a (sort of) rut at the edge of the grass so I wonder if "ritter" is a version of "rutter". I'd just call it an edging tool but the terms "edge iron" and "edging iron" seem to exist. I remember getting our first edging shears - luxury. SignaturePhil C. > Last week I had occasion to visit my brother, with whom I have had > negligible intercourse for more than 30 years. Pottering around his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Google professed never to have heard the term, and I wonder if anyone > else recognizes this name for a semicircular lawn edging tool? Rit, ritt (v.t.) to score, scratch, or slit. (Chambers 1988) Presumably a ritter would be a tool for doing such. SignatureBlue Sow >> Example: "Post" + "man" = "postman" (one word), but "post" + >> "office" = "post office" (two words). > > Post impressionist, but postmodernist... Personally I'd use a hyphen in each of those. SignatureMike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus III web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk |
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.