|
US admits defeat in Iraq? | by toxin | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
That has got to be..... | by thread_killer | 2004-09-24 09:24:31 |
|
Excuse me. Who was the aggressor in that situation | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 09:26:02 |
|
You are confusing | by thread_killer | 2004-09-24 09:32:02 |
|
No... | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 09:40:59 |
|
What the frell... | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 09:42:42 |
|
YOU misread, too. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 09:42:59 |
|
I know. | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 09:44:06 |
|
Nope. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 09:45:42 |
|
Perhaps I see more ambuiguity than you... | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 09:49:10 |
|
To remove any incongruity... | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 09:54:18 |
|
It appears our grammar differs significantly, then | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 09:57:58 |
|
I find that hard to believe. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:02:04 |
|
Hardly. It's a very uncommon case... | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 10:05:29 |
|
Unfortunately for you | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 10:07:47 |
| Clarification... non- is a prefix... |
by neksys |
2004-09-24 10:12:55 |
| ...and as such, is always written as a compound word WITHOUT the hyphen. HOWEVER there is an exception in cases where the second element of a compund consists of more than one word. If we consider "warmongering peacenik" to be one unit, then there is a hyphen. If peacenik is separate, there is no hyphen.
That said, however, the beauty or difficulty of the English language it is made up of popularly accepted conventions, and in this case, a quick google search returns 36 results for "non-warmongering" and 0 for "nonwarmongering".
The hyphens have it, correct or no. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
so... nobody knows WHAT'S right, but... | by McNutcase | 2004-09-24 10:15:49 |
|
I think your first statement is incorrect. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:20:35 |
|
Click here to win! | by neksys | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
nonuse is goodnuse! (n/t) | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 10:31:01 |
|
Sorry, that's a style guide for that Uni. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:32:06 |
|
My Chicago Manual of Style... | by neksys | 2004-09-24 10:51:53 |
|
He can breathe down your neck all he wants. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:27:04 |
|
According to my American Heritage Dictionary | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 10:36:31 |
|
The qualifier "normally" is also important. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:39:10 |
|
I took "normally" to mean | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 10:41:14 |
|
Sure it is.... | by neksys | 2004-09-24 11:07:59 |
|
Why would I do that? | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:27:50 |
|
prefixes are not always written | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 10:24:27 |
|
That's what I said... | by neksys | 2004-09-24 10:26:42 |
|
oops my fault | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 10:30:01 |
|
But you are wrong. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:34:29 |
|
and dictionary.com says otherwise | by tigermouse | 2004-09-24 10:51:43 |
|
"... Naruki... in the altogether..." | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:05:29 |
|
Why militant? | by tigermouse | 2004-09-24 11:11:07 |
|
Why huh? | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:28:58 |
|
I meant why would anyone have gotten so? | by tigermouse | 2004-09-24 11:36:49 |
|
I've found no evidence to the contrary... | by neksys | 2004-09-24 11:06:33 |
|
Good for you! | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:32:40 |