A very quick question.

[ellynei]

Regarding fishing.

Quote:

The notion actually humoured her. If she had known about a long extinct livelyhood amongst humans called 'fishing', she would have referred to herself as 'living bait'.

Unquote.

Should that be 'living bait' (as it currently is)? or 'live bait'? or something else?

It'd be awfully inconsistent if I use that analogy and then get the expression for using a living thing as bait wrong...

Hope someone here can assist

 

[cloudy]

Regarding fishing.

Quote:

The notion actually humoured her. If she had known about a long extinct livelyhood amongst humans called 'fishing', she would have referred to herself as 'living bait'.

Unquote.

Should that be 'living bait' (as it currently is)? or 'live bait'? or something else?

It'd be awfully inconsistent if I use that analogy and then get the expression for using a living thing as bait wrong...

Hope someone here can assist

Why not cut out "live" or "living," and just use "bait" alone? It makes just as much sense (honest), and you don't have to worry about form:

"If she had known about a long-extinct hobby (or you could use "pastime." I wouldn't use "livelihood" since that implies that a "living" is made from fishing, and not many people can make a living at fishing) amongst humans called fishing, she would have referred to herself as bait.

 

[sr71plt]

"live bait" is what goes with the fishing analogy.

 

[SummerDoug]

Regarding fishing.

Quote:

The notion actually humoured her. If she had known about a long extinct livelyhood amongst humans called 'fishing', she would have referred to herself as 'living bait'.

Unquote.

Should that be 'living bait' (as it currently is)? or 'live bait'? or something else?

It'd be awfully inconsistent if I use that analogy and then get the expression for using a living thing as bait wrong...

Hope someone here can assist

"Live bait" would be correct. BTW, livelihood, not livelyhood, and the period at the end of the sentence should go inside the quote. I don't charge for quick editing! Can't resist; I'm an English teacher.

 

[cloudy]

"live bait" is what goes with the fishing analogy.

1) "She" (whoever she is) is quite obviously alive, or she wouldn't be thinking. There's no reason to be redundant.

2) One can also use bait to fish that isn't alive, therefore the analogy works either way.

 

[sr71plt]

"Live bait" would be correct. BTW, livelihood, not livelyhood, and the period at the end of the sentence should go inside the quote. I don't charge for quick editing! Can't resist; I'm an English teacher.

The posting example was in British style. (There are differences between American style and British style.)

 

[starrkers]

"Live bait" would be correct. BTW, livelihood, not livelyhood, and the period at the end of the sentence should go inside the quote. I don't charge for quick editing! Can't resist; I'm an English teacher.

I'm an editor (of the paid variety) and disagree on the period inside the quote. The quote is not a full sentence, so the period goes outside the quote.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm an editor (of the paid variety) and disagree on the period inside the quote. The quote is not a full sentence, so the period goes outside the quote.

Again, this is British style. In American style, the period (and comma) always goes inside the quote. (See Chicago Manual of Style 6.8)

As on the editor's board, it seems a little difficult for folks to wrap their heads around the fact that British English and American English have some differing punctuation and spelling styles.(Snooper of the editor's board doesn't seem to realize/accept that there even is a separate American system from the British--even though the American market is preponderately the largest one--and even though this Web site is U.S. based and uses American style in all of its postings).

It only adds to the confusion to be "correcting" style that's perfectly proper in the style of the originating author's location.

And, as on the editor's board, this is why it isn't too helpful to recommend style authorities without specifying which market they are appropriate for.

I have been shown stories that were rejected by the Lit. submissions process that apparently only were rejected because they uniformly used British rather than American punctuation and spelling and because this stuck out significantly on that particular story.

That doesn't mean that the British system is wrong (for Brits)--only that American punctuation and spelling probably is easier to successfully submit on this American-based Web site. And it means those doing the "correcting" should try to be clear which system is in play.

 

[starrkers]

Too true, sr71. Perhaps I should've pointed out my geographical location in my original reply (just to totally confuse the issue )

 

[ellynei]

Why not cut out "live" or "living," and just use "bait" alone? It makes just as much sense (honest), and you don't have to worry about form:

"If she had known about a long-extinct hobby (or you could use "pastime." I wouldn't use "livelihood" since that implies that a "living" is made from fishing, and not many people can make a living at fishing) amongst humans called fishing, she would have referred to herself as bait.

I say livelihood because prior to being a hobby, fishing was a livelihood. Of course, it was even prior to that merely an addition to the regular work of gathering food, but livelihood seemed so much faster to write than 'way of gathering food'.

I like 'live bait' there is so much more wiggling involved, it felt more dynamic in context.

Thank you for the suggestion though.

"live bait" is what goes with the fishing analogy.

Thank you

"Live bait" would be correct. BTW, livelihood, not livelyhood, and the period at the end of the sentence should go inside the quote. I don't charge for quick editing! Can't resist; I'm an English teacher.

Sorry 'bout the misspelling, I didn't run a spell check on it.

Regarding period inside quote... oh dear, oh dear.

The posting example was in British style. (There are differences between American style and British style.)

oh dear, oh dear.

I'm an editor (of the paid variety) and disagree on the period inside the quote. The quote is not a full sentence, so the period goes outside the quote.

oh dear, oh dear.

Again, this is British style. In American style, the period (and comma) always goes inside the quote. (See Chicago Manual of Style 6.8)

oh dear, oh dear.



Damn... So, I have figured out which of my dictionaries are US english and which are UK english. I'm starting to get a feel for all the words that are spelled differently.

And, now you tell me they punctuate differently too!?!

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH

Shit, I'm still reading up on online punctuation guides to learn when to comma, when to period, when to other stuff, and when to nothing...

And, now I should start noting whether those guides are american or british?

Bloody hell.


Well, uhm... yeah... To me placing the period outside my, sort of, needless quote marking, which is merely meant to highlight a 'term', makes most sense.

So, until I have a thorough guide for british-specific and a thorough guide for american-specific punctuation, (and have memorised both,) I'll keep my punctuation inside for dialogue and outside for 'introduction of term'.

Thank you all for taking the time to aid, it was very nice of you.

 

[ellynei]

P.S. Just replaced 'livelihood' with 'activity', that word should cover the whole historic aspect of the matter more smoothy

(I hope.)


P.P.S Can't even punctuate properly in my own language. I even have trouble telling apart the two schools of Danish punctuation they taught back when I was in school...

 

[gauchecritic]

live-bait tends to be worms, maggots etc and is an actual angling term although I can't find it in either dic dot com nor websters so the spelling is up for grabs. (hyphenated looks better to me)

I think the point is that live-bait is used as one word to distinguish it from other bait which can be dead or have other food value. (Bread, bacon, meal etc)

Note however that 'mechanical' bait such as flies or those twirly things are known as lures rather than bait.

Hmm, this probably implies that bait has to have nutritional value to qualify.

 

[sr71plt]

There's no hyphen in "live bait." In fact, writers seem to be almost as hyphen crazy as they are capitalization crazy. Most hyphens involve adjectival combinations. Otherwise, if it is hyphenated, you can find it in the dictionary hyphenated. If you can't find it specifically in the dictionary as either hyphenated or as a one-word combination, you're safest to leave it open.

And on the question of using "live bait" or just "bait," I agree with ellynei's instinct that "live bait" gives a more interesting, graphic image. When you get too sparse with the images in writing, you zip right past fiction to police report style.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

There's no hyphen in "live bait." In fact, writers seem to be almost as hyphen crazy as they are capitalization crazy. Most hyphens involve adjectival combinations. Otherwise, if it is hyphenated, you can find it in the dictionary hyphenated. If you can't find it specifically in the dictionary as either hyphenated or as a one-word combination, you're safest to leave it open.

And on the question of using "live bait" or just "bait," I agree with ellynei's instinct that "live bait" gives a more interesting, graphic image. When you get too sparse with the images in writing, you zip right past fiction to police report style.

If I'm not sure on hyphenation I just run the two words together and see what Word's spell checker suggests to untangle them. It's not 100% accurate (It's M$ spell checker after all ) but helps in most cases.

I agree on 'live bait' over 'bait'

Bait can be a lot of things: hunk of meat, something shiny, one of those complicated wire fly things...

'Live bait' immediately conjures up an image of something wriggling on the end of hook.

 

[sr71plt]

If I'm not sure on hyphenation I just run the two words together and see what Word's spell checker suggests to untangle them. It's not 100% accurate (It's M$ spell checker after all ) but helps in most cases.

I agree on 'live bait' over 'bait'

Bait can be a lot of things: hunk of meat, something shiny, one of those complicated wire fly things...

'Live bait' immediately conjures up an image of something wriggling on the end of hook.

Computer spellchecks are hopeless with hyphenation. Need to use a dictionary for this.

 

[gauchecritic]

There's no hyphen in "live bait." In fact, writers seem to be almost as hyphen crazy as they are capitalization crazy. Most hyphens involve adjectival combinations. Otherwise, if it is hyphenated, you can find it in the dictionary hyphenated. If you can't find it specifically in the dictionary as either hyphenated or as a one-word combination, you're safest to leave it open.

But there is a hyphen in "live-bait".

Because the second part modifies the pronounciation of the first then it must be viewed as one word.

Hyphenation in this case leaves no opportunity for line or even page separation and forces correct pronounciation on contact.

The notion actually humoured her.
If she had known about a long extinct livelyhood amongst humans called 'fishing', she would have referred to herself as 'live
and let live'.

 

[sr71plt]

But there is a hyphen in "live-bait".

Because the second part modifies the pronounciation of the first then it must be viewed as one word.

Hyphenation in this case leaves no opportunity for line or even page separation and forces correct pronounciation on contact.

The notion actually humoured her.
If she had known about a long extinct livelyhood amongst humans called 'fishing', she would have referred to herself as 'live
and let live'.

Umm, no, absolutely not. Only as adjective + noun modifier of another noun. See the first-listed section of the Chicago Manual of Style 7.90. (You wouldn't hyphenate "small animal" in the noun/object position, would you? Absolutely the same thing).

Back to hypenation and computer spellcheck. Spellcheck doesn't actually recognize a hyphen at all. It has some words in its dictionary it thinks should have the hyphen (although not always in agreement with the dictionary), but it can't do anything regarding hyphenation on a word you are checking in your manuscript. It only sees the two word elements. So, if you ran it over "live bait" and "live-bait," it is reading the term only as "live bait" in both cases--and it will say both are correct. Thus, it can't tell you whether something is properly hyphenated at all. Now, if you ran it over "livebait," it would tell you to change it to "live bait."

 

[gauchecritic]

Umm, no, absolutely not. Only as adjective + noun modifier of another noun. See the first-listed section of the Chicago Manual of Style 7.90. (You wouldn't hyphenate "small animal" in the noun/object position, would you? Absolutely the same thing).

How is that exactly the same? Bait is eatable. Live-bait is living eatable. And if you're talking about style why would you place so much faith in a book of rules about an amorphous characteristic that changes with usage?

Back to hypenation and computer spellcheck. Spellcheck doesn't actually recognize a hyphen at all. It has some words in its dictionary it thinks should have the hyphen (although not always in agreement with the dictionary), but it can't do anything regarding hyphenation on a word you are checking in your manuscript. It only sees the two word elements. So, if you ran it over "live bait" and "live-bait," it is reading the term only as "live bait" in both cases--and it will say both are correct. Thus, it can't tell you whether something is properly hyphenated at all. Now, if you ran it over "livebait," it would tell you to change it to "live bait."

As you agree, the word live-bait doesn't exist, so why are you insisting that a mechanical spell checker knows better than you?

 

[Saucy_Sage]

One more correction. On the thread's title, there should be a "not" between the "A" and the "very.".

Saucy_Sage English provides for two periods in the above sentence, one before and one after the final quotation mark. No hyphens.

I am an unpaid newbie.

 

[gauchecritic]

One more correction. On the thread's title, there should be a "not" between the "A" and the "very.".

Saucy_Sage English provides for two periods in the above sentence, one before and one after the final quotation mark. No hyphens.

I am an unpaid newbie.

or the word 'jackable' which I just invented and can spell how I please.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

or the word 'jackable' which I just invented and can spell how I please.

Do you mean "a jackable quick question"? That doesn't sound right.

"A very jackable question" sounds better, although it might be more appropriate for a question like, "What do you think would happen if you met Eva Longoria all alone in the middle of a deserted football stadium, with neither one of you wearing any clothing whatsoever?"

I imagine for most guys that woud be a jackable question. But there, I've gone and changed the meaning of your word, haven't I? My bad. Apparently the language can evolve very quickly.

 

[sr71plt]

How is that exactly the same? Bait is eatable. Live-bait is living eatable. And if you're talking about style why would you place so much faith in a book of rules about an amorphous characteristic that changes with usage?



As you agree, the word live-bait doesn't exist, so why are you insisting that a mechanical spell checker knows better than you?

I'm sure anyone looking for actual help here can see that you don't make a lick of sense, so I'll leave it like that.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm sure anyone looking for actual help here can see that you don't make a lick of sense, so I'll leave it like that.

So's your face.

But there, I've gone and changed the meaning of your word, haven't I? My bad. Apparently the language can evolve very quickly.

naa, that's just a homonym. or is it a synomym? It's the kind of nym that has two different meanings for the same word.

(Except that 'jackable' is from the same root as hi-jack, which means that early in the history of its usage the word was spelled (pronounced spelt) with a beginning apostrophe 'jackable. but fell into disuse when used with single quotes which made the word begin with a double quote and end with a single when being highlighted.; ''jackable'. When used in written speech the quote mark usage became untenable: "''jackable?'" she asked and very quickly limited any succeeding quote marks in any single piece, leaving whole swathes of spoken word with neither attributes nor quote marks.)