Sainsbury's assorted waterproof plasters are waterproof neither in the sense of keeping water away from your injury nor of reliably staying on when they get wet.
Well, that would make it funnier. But are you sure? I seem to remember being taught at school, and am agreed with by theslot.com, a professional (if american) editor, that for multi-level hyphenation you can use an n-dash to reduce ambiguity, and distinguish between a plaster proof against non-water, and a plaster that isn't water-proof. Admittedly, it's clear from context here; I was attempting to be amusing, not correct :)
You clearly can; the question is whether or not you may! (I don't think there's any reason to use anything other than one single hyphen in "non-waterproof".)
Oh, no, I think I've misunderstood you. The existence of the hyphen disambiguates that, so there's no need to use an n-dash rather than a hyphen. But then, this is the sort of conversation that ends up with people suggesting that English needs order of precedence. Rather than, say, phrasing things clearly in the first place.
What would be the correct way to phrase something that's resistant to everything except water while not really suggesting anything about what it's like with water?
(Yes, the obvious answer is "Resistant to everything except water", but there's also non-water proof or non-water-proof or any of the wide variety of entertaining unicode hyphen characters that are just begging to be used to make a pedantic point about something though I'm sure I don't know what)
Well, the web isn't the best place to discuss the finer points of typesetting because different browsers behave differently and don't always get things right, but:
In typesetting, you don't just type three dots and expect it to come out right (in Microsoft Word you might, but then (a) that isn't proper typesetting, and (b) Word will probably eat your three dots and spit out a Microsoft-specific ellipsis character). What generally happens when you do that is that the dots come out too close together. The ellipsis looks much better if you put a small amount of space between the dots. You can do that manually, like this. . .
But modern HTML also comes with a ready-made ellipsis character which the browser ought to display with the proper spacing (probably not as much space as in the manually-spaced version, but more space than just typing three dots). It is produced by typing "…" and looks like this…
Indeed. On the web it has the added advantage of being an indivisible character when people select chunks of text.
And the further advantage that it contains the correct number of dots, when people who make ellipses manually often use two, or get carried away and put in whole lines of the things.
There are people in the world who don't consider the use of n-dashes to be and end in itself? :) Seriously, you are entirely right, I just wasn't being serious. Sorry :)
M-dash girl, hmm. While you're here do you have any strng opinions on how to use the m-dash in plain text media? I favour '--', but most people seem to prefer just '-'.
I'd just like to say that I put spaces around my em-dashes — like this — and I call them "em-dashes" rather than "m-dashes". Largely to prove I know my two-letter Scrabble words.
All style guides I have read have reserved the en dash for number ranges, or in space-dash-space as an alternative for the em dash.
I don't believe that using it for hypenation has ever been seriously recommended. It's the kind of detail that would sail over the heads of most readers, and it would look ugly on the page and indistinguishable on the screen. The example theslot uses (capital gains tax cut) would probably not be hyphenated by most of the newspapers and magazines I read: they all recommend parsimonious use of hyphens except when needed to disambiguate. They also agree with Janet about not hyphenating compound words like waterproof.
The Economist style guide quotes: “If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad” (Oxford University Press style manual).
The only decent plasters I've found to survive water in the shape of spa, shower, etc are the "second-skin" style ones you can get. Its just a shame that they are relatively expensive per-plaster.
I leave papercuts and the like open to the air; its much better for them. However more serious cuts - of the sort where you've removed reasonable amounts of skin or its a cut which is bleeding lots - are definately helped by this type of plaster. If nothing else they'll keep the blood in one place whilst it starts to clot.
Have they been in prolonged contact with other kinds of metal? (For example, using metal scourers on stainless steel surfaces can be a bad plan, depending on what the scourer is made of.)
Nope. This is cutlery, and the only vaguely naughty thing I've done is leaving stuff in water (well, water with added Fairy Liquid) to soak for a while on occasion.
Try some gauze and hold it in place with zinc oxide tape - it's really sticky and will stay on when it gets wet (micropore tape looses its stickiness when it gets wet and is less sticky to start with).
Depends on the micropore. Boots' own brand resist showering and the high-pressure toxic steam bath that is the dreadful existence of a micropore bandage on HairyEars third left toe.
A quiet pint might set your mind at rest that I am not some unspeakable stalker or the sinister force that drives deluded souls to post interminably on Uk.Misc (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&num=100&ie=UTF-8&group=uk.misc) about the security services. Though frankly, I think my conversation will bore you. More to the point, you'll learn more from simply reading my user info (http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=hairyears) than you'd ever find out face-to-face: roughly who, roughly what, and precisely why I seem to read this or that Live Journal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:17 am (UTC)[1] I used an n-dash! I am teh pedant!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:06 am (UTC)(Yes, the obvious answer is "Resistant to everything except water", but there's also non-water proof or non-water-proof or any of the wide variety of entertaining unicode hyphen characters that are just begging to be used to make a pedantic point about something though I'm sure I don't know what)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 02:41 pm (UTC)If you're going to try to be pedantic about hyphens and en-dashes, you might as well be pedantic about ellipses too…
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 08:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 09:48 am (UTC)In typesetting, you don't just type three dots and expect it to come out right (in Microsoft Word you might, but then (a) that isn't proper typesetting, and (b) Word will probably eat your three dots and spit out a Microsoft-specific ellipsis character). What generally happens when you do that is that the dots come out too close together. The ellipsis looks much better if you put a small amount of space between the dots. You can do that manually, like this. . .
But modern HTML also comes with a ready-made ellipsis character which the browser ought to display with the proper spacing (probably not as much space as in the manually-spaced version, but more space than just typing three dots). It is produced by typing "…" and looks like this…
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 01:33 pm (UTC)And the further advantage that it contains the correct number of dots, when people who make ellipses manually often use two, or get carried away and put in whole lines of the things.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-22 05:56 am (UTC)...
…
. . .
Preview: hmm. In Opera, the ellipsis character is closer than the three dots.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:59 am (UTC)(I'm more of an m-dash girl, anyway.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:03 am (UTC)M-dash girl, hmm. While you're here do you have any strng opinions on how to use the m-dash in plain text media? I favour '--', but most people seem to prefer just '-'.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 11:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 01:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:44 am (UTC)The wonderful thing about standards...
So, did anyone attempt to draw this kind of distinction before the invention of printing?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:12 am (UTC)I don't believe that using it for hypenation has ever been seriously recommended. It's the kind of detail that would sail over the heads of most readers, and it would look ugly on the page and indistinguishable on the screen. The example theslot uses (capital gains tax cut) would probably not be hyphenated by most of the newspapers and magazines I read: they all recommend parsimonious use of hyphens except when needed to disambiguate. They also agree with Janet about not hyphenating compound words like waterproof.
The Economist style guide quotes: “If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad” (Oxford University Press style manual).
Speak of the devil
Date: 2004-09-20 01:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 09:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:02 am (UTC)Not to mention being total overkill for minor cuts and scrapes! What's the big deal if a bit of water gets in a papercut?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 10:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 06:10 pm (UTC)While we're at it...
Date: 2004-09-20 11:43 am (UTC)Re: While we're at it...
Date: 2004-09-20 05:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 01:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 02:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 05:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-20 05:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 01:37 pm (UTC)It's unpalatably gruesome, yet at the same time entirely unuseful to me in trying to determine who you are. :-p
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-21 05:03 pm (UTC)