Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"wastewater" or "waste water" (or even "waste-water")
3,633 views
Skip to first unread message
DavidW
May 20, 2014, 8:21:09 PM5/20/14
to
A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste water" for sure,
but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very common, including on government
health department websites. Wikipedia has "wastewater" as its main entry, but
includes 'also written as waste water'. I wouldn't hyphenate it for the reason
that I wouldn't hyphenate "brick house". My guess is "waste water" came first
and "wastewater" crept in later. Thoughts please?
but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very common, including on government
health department websites. Wikipedia has "wastewater" as its main entry, but
includes 'also written as waste water'. I wouldn't hyphenate it for the reason
that I wouldn't hyphenate "brick house". My guess is "waste water" came first
and "wastewater" crept in later. Thoughts please?
Peter T. Daniels
May 21, 2014, 12:50:38 AM5/21/14
to
DavidW
May 21, 2014, 1:07:25 AM5/21/14
to
assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two words. (Is that not standard
practice?) It seems inconsistent to me to say that one word is acceptable for
the adjective but not for the noun.
Mark Brader
May 21, 2014, 4:55:24 AM5/21/14
to
David W.:
> Subject: "wastewater" or "waste water" (or even "waste-water")
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "[I] have a will of iron."
m...@vex.net | "And a head to match." --Robert B. Parker, "Chance"
> Subject: "wastewater" or "waste water" (or even "waste-water")
> A colleague is asking which of these to use.
Whichever you like.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "[I] have a will of iron."
m...@vex.net | "And a head to match." --Robert B. Parker, "Chance"
Don Phillipson
May 21, 2014, 7:31:02 AM5/21/14
to
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:llhcar$571$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste water"
>>> for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very common . . .
>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I would have
> assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two words. (Is that not
> standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me to say that one word is
> acceptable for the adjective but not for the noun.
The OP is mistaken, i.e. no general rule governs this uniformly.
Consider "football" and "handball," each formed by concatenating
two nouns, with no hyphen. We do not add one when we talk
about the football rules.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:llhcar$571$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste water"
>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I would have
> assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two words. (Is that not
> standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me to say that one word is
> acceptable for the adjective but not for the noun.
Consider "football" and "handball," each formed by concatenating
two nouns, with no hyphen. We do not add one when we talk
about the football rules.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
CDB
May 21, 2014, 8:01:50 AM5/21/14
to
On 21/05/2014 4:55 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> David W.:
>> Subject: "wastewater" or "waste water" (or even "waste-water") A
>> colleague is asking which of these to use.
> Whichever you like.
I think a case could be made for the single-word version, on the ground
> David W.:
>> Subject: "wastewater" or "waste water" (or even "waste-water") A
>> colleague is asking which of these to use.
> Whichever you like.
that it's as much like like "wastebasket" -- water that carries rubbish
-- as like "waste paper".
But the two-word version (for the noun) looks more elegant, IMO, and
would probably attract less criticism.
Peter T. Daniels
May 21, 2014, 8:05:17 AM5/21/14
to
given that that's the standard practice for such constructions (see
earlier list), how is it not consistent?
The different spelling reflects the stress difference between "waste
water" and "wastewater."
DavidW
May 21, 2014, 7:55:51 PM5/21/14
to
DavidW
May 21, 2014, 7:56:02 PM5/21/14
to
Don Phillipson wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>
>>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste
>>>> water" for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very
>>>> common . . .
>
>>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
>
>> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I
>> would have assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two
>> words. (Is that not standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me
>> to say that one word is acceptable for the adjective but not for the
>> noun.
>
> The OP is mistaken, i.e. no general rule governs this uniformly.
> Consider "football" and "handball," each formed by concatenating
> two nouns, with no hyphen. We do not add one when we talk
> about the football rules.
Those example are irrelevant. I am not disputing that there are many such cases
>>>> water" for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very
>>>> common . . .
>
>>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
>
>> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I
>> would have assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two
>> words. (Is that not standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me
>> to say that one word is acceptable for the adjective but not for the
>> noun.
>
> The OP is mistaken, i.e. no general rule governs this uniformly.
> Consider "football" and "handball," each formed by concatenating
> two nouns, with no hyphen. We do not add one when we talk
> about the football rules.
of concatenation. In my OP I am asking what is the preferred form for waste
water (if there is one), and in my reply above I am talking about only those
cases in which two words for the noun is the usual practice.
DavidW
May 21, 2014, 8:01:16 PM5/21/14
to
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 1:07:25 AM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:21:09 PM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
>
>>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste
>>>> water" for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very
>>>> common, including on government health department websites.
>>>> Wikipedia has "wastewater" as its main entry, but includes 'also
>>>> written as waste water'. I wouldn't hyphenate it for the reason
>>>> that I wouldn't hyphenate "brick house". My guess is "waste water"
>>>> came first and "wastewater" crept in later. Thoughts please?
>>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
>>
>> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I
>> would have assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two
>> words. (Is that not standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me
>> to say that one word is acceptable for the adjective but not for the
>> noun.
>
> What has "consistency" to do with anything in real language,
Despite the many inconsistencies in the English language there are also some
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 1:07:25 AM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:21:09 PM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
>
>>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste
>>>> water" for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very
>>>> common, including on government health department websites.
>>>> Wikipedia has "wastewater" as its main entry, but includes 'also
>>>> written as waste water'. I wouldn't hyphenate it for the reason
>>>> that I wouldn't hyphenate "brick house". My guess is "waste water"
>>>> came first and "wastewater" crept in later. Thoughts please?
>>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
>>
>> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I
>> would have assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two
>> words. (Is that not standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me
>> to say that one word is acceptable for the adjective but not for the
>> noun.
>
> What has "consistency" to do with anything in real language,
conventions that are usually followed, and I thought one of them was to use a
hyphen to turn a two-word noun into an adjective, e.g., "gas heater" ->
"gas-heater manufacturer".
> and
> anyway given that that's the standard practice for such constructions
> (see earlier list), how is it not consistent?
noun and one word for the adjective?
I can only think of verb/noun examples, such as "set up" (verb) and "setup"
(noun).
(What earlier list?)
> The different spelling reflects the stress difference between "waste water"
> and "wastewater."
affect how many words to use.
snide...@gmail.com
May 21, 2014, 9:31:46 PM5/21/14
to
it a gander, since some of the same questions have come up in that context.
Many of us in this group, by the way, have found that sometimes trying to
self-analyze stress leads to mistakes ... either in the performance (we make
unnatural stress when we are concentrating on stress) or in perception (we
don't realize differences that exist, or see differences that don't exist).
The easy way around the self-analysis problem is to either have someone else
listen to self, or to make a recording and analyze the recording (although
perception errors can still creep in ... the brain is very good at "hearing"
what it expects).
/dps
Peter T. Daniels
May 22, 2014, 12:01:46 AM5/22/14
to
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:01:16 PM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 1:07:25 AM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:21:09 PM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
> >>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste
> >>>> water" for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very
> >>>> common, including on government health department websites.
> >>>> Wikipedia has "wastewater" as its main entry, but includes 'also
> >>>> written as waste water'. I wouldn't hyphenate it for the reason
> >>>> that I wouldn't hyphenate "brick house". My guess is "waste water"
> >>>> came first and "wastewater" crept in later. Thoughts please?
> >>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
> >> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I
> >> would have assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two
> >> words. (Is that not standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me
> >> to say that one word is acceptable for the adjective but not for the
> >> noun.
> > What has "consistency" to do with anything in real language,
>
> Despite the many inconsistencies in the English language there are also some
> conventions that are usually followed, and I thought one of them was to use a
> hyphen to turn a two-word noun into an adjective, e.g., "gas heater" ->
> "gas-heater manufacturer".
That's not an adjective, that's a noun-noun sequence. ("Gas heater" is
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 1:07:25 AM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:21:09 PM UTC-4, DavidW wrote:
> >>>> A colleague is asking which of these to use. I thought "waste
> >>>> water" for sure, but if you Google for "wastewater" it's very
> >>>> common, including on government health department websites.
> >>>> Wikipedia has "wastewater" as its main entry, but includes 'also
> >>>> written as waste water'. I wouldn't hyphenate it for the reason
> >>>> that I wouldn't hyphenate "brick house". My guess is "waste water"
> >>>> came first and "wastewater" crept in later. Thoughts please?
> >>> The noun is two words, the adjective is one word.
> >> I was only talking about the noun form, but for the adjective I
> >> would have assumed that a hyphen is correct if the noun is two
> >> words. (Is that not standard practice?) It seems inconsistent to me
> >> to say that one word is acceptable for the adjective but not for the
> >> noun.
> > What has "consistency" to do with anything in real language,
>
> Despite the many inconsistencies in the English language there are also some
> conventions that are usually followed, and I thought one of them was to use a
> hyphen to turn a two-word noun into an adjective, e.g., "gas heater" ->
> "gas-heater manufacturer".
a two-word noun, so it needs a hyphen when it comes first in that
construction.)
> > and
> > anyway given that that's the standard practice for such constructions
> > (see earlier list), how is it not consistent?
>
> Do you have other examples where the convention is to use the two words for
> the noun and one word for the adjective?
>
> I can only think of verb/noun examples, such as "set up" (verb) and "setup"
> (noun).
>
> (What earlier list?)
back seat, etc. The backseat driver sits in the back seat.
> > The different spelling reflects the stress difference between "waste water"
> > and "wastewater."
>
> I would pronounce both with the same stress and I don't see why stress should
> affect how many words to use.
notice the stress difference.
DavidW
May 22, 2014, 12:50:44 AM5/22/14
to
adjective in, say, "waste-water treatment". "Gas-heater" is describing the
manufacturer.
>>> and
>>> anyway given that that's the standard practice for such
>>> constructions (see earlier list), how is it not consistent?
>>
>> Do you have other examples where the convention is to use the two
>> words for the noun and one word for the adjective?
>>
>> I can only think of verb/noun examples, such as "set up" (verb) and
>> "setup" (noun).
>>
>> (What earlier list?)
>
> There was a list of at least 5 "back" words -- such as back door,
> back seat, etc. The backseat driver sits in the back seat.
past hyphen being dropped as a result of very frequent use (which I don't object
to), or perhaps, if they are recent enough, they were coined by someone who
dislikes hyphens and skipped that step. But in all cases the hyphen is there in
spirit.
Don Phillipson
May 22, 2014, 5:11:48 PM5/22/14
to
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:lljeos$edq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Despite the many inconsistencies in the English language there are also
> some conventions that are usually followed, and I thought one of them was
> to use a hyphen to turn a two-word noun into an adjective, e.g., "gas
> heater" -> "gas-heater manufacturer".
DavidW
May 22, 2014, 5:53:49 PM5/22/14
to
Don Phillipson wrote:
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> news:lljeos$edq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> Despite the many inconsistencies in the English language there are
>> also some conventions that are usually followed, and I thought one
>> of them was to use a hyphen to turn a two-word noun into an
>> adjective, e.g., "gas heater" -> "gas-heater manufacturer".
>
> Most responses suggest the OP was mistaken.
Mistaken about what? The last time you said "The OP is mistaken" you had
> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
> news:lljeos$edq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> Despite the many inconsistencies in the English language there are
>> also some conventions that are usually followed, and I thought one
>> of them was to use a hyphen to turn a two-word noun into an
>> adjective, e.g., "gas heater" -> "gas-heater manufacturer".
>
> Most responses suggest the OP was mistaken.
completely misunderstood the discussion and referred to irrelevant examples such
as "football" and "handball".
kumic...@gmail.com
Jan 22, 2018, 9:57:54 AM1/22/18
to
Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words become compound words.
Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific literature.
Why? I seems strange using a hyphen every time when using the word de-chlorination. Feels like a simple case of language evolving to become simpler for specific functions.
Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific literature.
Why? I seems strange using a hyphen every time when using the word de-chlorination. Feels like a simple case of language evolving to become simpler for specific functions.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2018, 10:07:00 AM1/22/18
to
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 9:57:54 AM UTC-5, kumic...@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words become compound words.
>
> Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific literature.
>
> Why? I seems strange using a hyphen every time when using the word de-chlorination. Feels like a simple case of language evolving to become simpler for specific functions.
It seems fairly clear that you aren't here to participate in a discussion, but
> Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words become compound words.
>
> Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific literature.
>
> Why? I seems strange using a hyphen every time when using the word de-chlorination. Feels like a simple case of language evolving to become simpler for specific functions.
how is using the hyphen or not using the hyphen either simpler or not simpler?
The language has not changed ("evolved") one whit.
David Kleinecke
Jan 22, 2018, 1:41:47 PM1/22/18
to
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 6:57:54 AM UTC-8, kumic...@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words become compound words.
>
> Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific literature.
Ground-water ~ groundwater
> Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words become compound words.
>
> Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific literature.
Horace LaBadie
Jan 22, 2018, 2:41:47 PM1/22/18
to
David Kleinecke
Jan 22, 2018, 4:42:33 PM1/22/18
to
Peter Moylan
Jan 22, 2018, 7:36:16 PM1/22/18
to
On 23/01/18 01:57, kumic...@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental
> engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words
> become compound words.
>
> Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The
> compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific
> literature.
>
> Why? I seems strange using a hyphen every time when using the word
> de-chlorination. Feels like a simple case of language evolving to
> become simpler for specific functions.
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 4:53:49 PM UTC-5, DavidW wrote:
>> Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>> news:lljeos$edq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
[...]
> Interesting. I've noticed that in my field (environmental
> engineering) quite a few traditionally separated or hyphenated words
> become compound words.
>
> Waste waster - wastewater. De-chlorination - dechlorination. The
> compound versions are pervasive in textbooks and scientific
> literature.
>
> Why? I seems strange using a hyphen every time when using the word
> de-chlorination. Feels like a simple case of language evolving to
> become simpler for specific functions.
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 4:53:49 PM UTC-5, DavidW wrote:
>> Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
>>> news:lljeos$edq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
There's still a hyphen in "top-posting", though.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
0 new messages