Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:09 am
Post subject: Re: Prefix non- |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:23:46 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrought:
| Quote: | R H Draney wrote:
Michael Nitabach filted:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1c0e88e98be5695b989be8@news.individual.net:
Some "non-" words have become so common that the joined form is
universally recognized: nonlinear, nonsense, etc.
"Nonparametric" needs no hyphen.
But, perversely, "non-hyphenated" seems to require it....r
"Unhyphenated" is better; and "unhyphened" arguably better still.
|
Isn't the temptation to pronounce it as "un-high fiend" a large one,
though? Huge, even.
--
Ross Howard
|
|
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Prefix non- |
|
|
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote in message news:<49obq0htc9vtfok4ljtjc71tpgre518178@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | On 25 Nov 2004 02:13:27 -0800, athel@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr (Athel
Cornish-Bowden) wrote:
My impression is that the only phrases of this kind that are written
as two words without a hyphen are ones where the entire phrase is
Latin, such as "non sequitur".
Probably so, but "non sequitur" is a perfectly good English word. Any
word the language adopts, and most words fall into that category, it
makes its own.
|
Certainly. I didn't intend to imply that "non sequitur" is not
English, and indeed I always write it without italics. It is just that
unlike the examples quoted by the OP it is a genuine Latin phrase that
has been adopted into English. Apart from "non compos mentis", most of
the other examples of this are phrases like "non assumpsit" that
lawyers might use but ordinary people would not.
athel
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
athel@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/homepage.htm |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in