Talk:Hyphen: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Ro Thorpe (well-chosen) |
imported>Hayford Peirce |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:Good for them, nice & quaint. Thanks for the article: as you can see, it's email for me! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | :Good for them, nice & quaint. Thanks for the article: as you can see, it's email for me! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
== adverbs (second time I'm trying this tonight, maybe forgot to Save) == | |||
Don't forget the misuse of hyphens in adverbs such as "beautifully-written article, Rheaux!". Whereas they may be disappearing from "no-one" and "base-ball", they are merely being teleported to a new destination in adverbial phrases.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:57, 9 January 2009
And, finally, my 1990s essay on the hyphen: too clapped out to format it for now... Ro Thorpe 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) - Oh, whither User:John Dvorak?
At least the New-York Historical Society is still keeping the faith. Bruce M.Tindall 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good for them, nice & quaint. Thanks for the article: as you can see, it's email for me! Ro Thorpe 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
adverbs (second time I'm trying this tonight, maybe forgot to Save)
Don't forget the misuse of hyphens in adverbs such as "beautifully-written article, Rheaux!". Whereas they may be disappearing from "no-one" and "base-ball", they are merely being teleported to a new destination in adverbial phrases.... Hayford Peirce 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)