User talk:Axemanstan

Sign-language/Sign Language

Isn't sign language interpreter a noun?--NeilEvans 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on hyphenated compound adjectives

This rule is mandatory only in American English. In British and Commonwealth English, hyphenation of a compound adjective is not necessary unless it would actually cause some confusion. A yellow-dog leash, vs. a yellow dog leach, but as in this case "sign language interpreter" is also valid, as "sign" cannot refer seperately to "interpreter" alone. While the Sign language article requires a bit of a pro/con weighing of choices, British usage should be explicitly prefered for article regarding British things, such as British Sign Language. --Puellanivis 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ref: American and British English differences#Punctuation --Puellanivis 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is sometimes believed that BrE does not hyphenate multiple-word adjectives (e.g. "a first class ticket"). The most common form is as in AmE ("a first-class ticket"), but some British writers omit the hyphen when no ambiguity would arise.blockquote>

With regard to compound adjectives in American English, if "sign-language interpreter" needs to be hypenated then is "spoken-language interpreter" correct too?--NeilEvans 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to what both of you have commented, I did some investigation and have convinced myself that 'sign language' is a compound noun, just like 'police officer' or 'high school'. A compound noun, when used as an adjective, is not hyphenated unless there could be some confusion in the meaning of the sentence. (I found this in a Writer's Guide for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game of all places). It is not a compound adjective after all, so the hyphenation rule that I have been using up until now doesn't necessarily apply. Thus we have high school diploma instead of high-school diploma. And....sign language user instead of sign-language user, sign language interpreter instead of sign-language intepreter. Thanks for helping me clarify this, because it has actually been bugging me for the last couple of days. I was using hyphens when they were not required, and I stand corrected. Axemanstan 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I knew there was a good reason for it to not be hyphenated in the Sign language article, I just couldn't put my finger on it. I asserted that it were a "lexeme" under the position that together it is treated as one lexical unit, and would not be hyphenated. This is essentially a vague and non-perscriptive way of saying that the perscriptive rule that you found is right. I just wanted to raise the point that on the British Sign Language page, that it should most definitely not be hyphenated, as that is the typical grammatical use of English in that country. It is actually quite common on Wikipedia, for a British-centric article to conform to British English rules over American English rules. So, even if you were correct initially with your gut feeling that "sign-language interpreter" is correct for American usage, on the BSL page, it is most definitely "sign language interpreter", as no ambiguity exists, and they're often quick to drop hyphens in complex adjectives. One of the problems with having two competing standards ruling the same encyclopedic content. (Just look at the Estrogen article, or should I say Oestrogen.) --Puellanivis 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)