| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
 Posted - 02/21/2007 : 23:18:11
|
Perhaps my title offers more than it can deliver, especially since I'm asking a question rather than suggesting a strategy. Can "ten percent" be made into one word by being recast as "10%," likewise can "six inches" be condensed (so to speak) as 6"?
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 23:41:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
Perhaps my title offers more than it can deliver, especially since I'm asking a question rather than suggesting a strategy. Can "ten percent" be made into one word by being recast as "10%," likewise can "six inches" be condensed (so to speak) as 6"?
I've wondered the same thing, Cat! Can't see why not, as we use abbreviations like NYC, FBI, etc. Maybe Benj can give us a ruling.
|
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 23:59:10
|
You mean like this?  |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:15:54
|
Yep- symbols are treated as the same 'word' as the number they're associated with so 10% or 6" are each one 'word', as are �100 or $200.
On a semi-related note, mathematical operators are treated in the same way as punctuation in that they don't add to the word count, e.g. "Stiller + Wilson = Starsky + Hutch" is still four words.
Oh... and abbreviations are fine as long as the MERPs agree you're using a widely accepted abbreviation. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:43:03
|
| Thanks benj!! I've always thought that, and have used the + once or twice when it seemed like it worked but I never knew if it was okay. And thanks to Benj & the MERPs for the smathering of new approvals!! |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Thanks benj!! I've always thought that, and have used the + once or twice when it seemed like it worked but I never knew if it was okay. And thanks to Benj & the MERPs for the smathering of new approvals!!
Although it may be legal, you won't catch me writing, or voting for, a review where "=" is used to mean is or where "+" is used to mean and.
I don't think I am alone in my dislike of such reviews.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:53:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Thanks benj!! I've always thought that, and have used the + once or twice when it seemed like it worked but I never knew if it was okay. And thanks to Benj & the MERPs for the smathering of new approvals!!
Although it may be legal, you won't catch me writing, or voting for, a review where "=" is used to mean is or where "+" is used to mean and.
I don't think I am alone in my dislike of such reviews.
You are not, sirrah. |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 02:32:30
|
Well this is great. Thanks for the feedback everyone. Especialy you, Benj, as your opinion has the weight of law.
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 03:27:41
|
| I didn't say I used a symbol to get around using what would be an additional word. I said I have used them once or twice in a situation where it seemed quite appropriate. In looking, I used = twice, < (or >, can't remember which), and have a Romeo + Juliet review pending that uses the +. In those cases, it had the effect I intended and did not have the effect of getting around a fifth word. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 09:09:37
|
I am not too keen on mathematical symbols when they could only be replaced by words, but in most cases they could be replaced by punctuation e.g. "Stiller, Wilson: Starsky, Hutch". O.K., this does not work quite as well, but since it's the same type of idea it would be difficult to draw a clear line between punctuation and other symbols. I have recently submitted a review of the form "W > X > Y > Z". The symbols do not equate to words, but are just meant to indicate progression - if this weren't allowed, I would just use commas.
Benj, if pluses are now universally allowed in this manner, is it the same for ampersands? They definitely stand for words, but the meaning is only the same as the plus usage in your example. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 09:20:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Thanks benj!! I've always thought that, and have used the + once or twice when it seemed like it worked but I never knew if it was okay. And thanks to Benj & the MERPs for the smathering of new approvals!!
Although it may be legal, you won't catch me writing, or voting for, a review where "=" is used to mean is or where "+" is used to mean and.
I don't think I am alone in my dislike of such reviews.
Yes but... what about my The Nude Bomb review? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Benj, if pluses are now universally allowed in this manner, is it the same for ampersands? They definitely stand for words, but the meaning is only the same as the plus usage in your example.
Perhaps I should have made myself a little clearer... I was trying to demonstrate a mathematical formula, i.e. the sum of Stiller and Wilson equals the sum of Starsky and Hutch.
If you're planning to use + instead of & or 'and', it will be treated as a word. Usually it's pretty clear that someone is writing a formula view (there's usually an = in there) and if not, then the + will be counted as a word.
And before anyone asks, boolean logic formulas are generally frowned upon, since it's only techie geeks who know what's going on. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:27:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
And before anyone asks, boolean logic formulas are generally frowned upon, since it's only techie geeks who know what's going on.
Well... that's... er... logical.
(I guess.)
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:36:22
|
| Ah right, yes, this is what I thought your policy was. I didn't really think of your example as a formula, since I was thinking of that as involving two people/things resulting in a single combined result of some sort. So "Connery + Johansson = banality" would be fine (in the imagined horror of this combo appearing). What about "Connery + Johansson are banal"? I'm assuming this wouldn't be. "Connery, Johansson are banal" would be, though, in contrast. Anyway, I don't want to get into a discussion about this, as I have always been perfectly happy with decisions in this regard. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/22/2007 12:33:31 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 12:46:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
And before anyone asks, boolean logic formulas are generally frowned upon, since it's only techie geeks who know what's going on.
Hey, Booleans gotta live too you know! 
|
|
|
|
roger_thornhill 
"'scuse me while I disappear..."
|
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:49:30
|
quote:
Yes but... what about my The Nude Bomb review?
Hmmm...I probably wouldn't vote for it, if that's what you are asking. |
Edited by - roger_thornhill on 02/22/2007 14:50:19 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Does using signs conserve word usage?
