two century-old vs. two-century-old

[Dingbat]

Can the two be distinguished in speech?

New Jersey entrance to the two century-old tunnels that carry Amtrak and NJ Transit trains into New York City
http://assets.njspotlight.com/assets/14/1022/0118

[HVS]

On 28 Apr 2017, Dingbat wrote

It might be possible by pausing slightly between "two" and "century-old".

But surely most people would avoid the ambiguity by saying "two 100-year-old
tunnels", wouldn't they?

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30yrs) and BrEng (34yrs), indiscriminately mixed

[Jerry Friedman]

I think they can when I say them. "Two-century-old" has the strongest
accent on "two", and "two century-old" has the strongest accent on
"century".

--
Jerry Friedman

[bill van]

In article <XnsA765B3EF...@178.63.61.145>,

HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

> On 28 Apr 2017, Dingbat wrote
>
> > Can the two be distinguished in speech?
> >
> > New Jersey entrance to the two century-old tunnels that carry Amtrak and
> > NJ Transit trains into New York City
> > http://assets.njspotlight.com/assets/14/1022/0118
>
> It might be possible by pausing slightly between "two" and "century-old".
>
> But surely most people would avoid the ambiguity by saying "two 100-year-old
> tunnels", wouldn't they?

Depends on how you say it. It contains the same ambiguity if you say
"two hundred-year-old tunnels". The ambiguity is avoided if you say "two
one-hundred-year-old tunnels". I can't tell from what you wrote which
one you had in mind.
--
bill

[HVS]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:34:07 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

I meant the second one - I should have written it in words.

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years),
indiscriminately mixed

[Dingbat]

That's the answer I was looking for. Can the American listener tell which one of the two you mean?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yes.

[Mark Brader]

Ranjit Mathews:

> Can the two be distinguished in speech?

The two what?

> Subject: two century-old vs. two-century-old

Oh, those two. Yes, it's a simple matter of inflection.
--
Mark Brader | "I do have an idea ... based on the quite obvious fact
Toronto | that the number two is ridiculous and can't exist."
m...@vex.net | -- Ben Denison (Isaac Asimov, "The Gods Themselves")

[Mark Brader]

Harvey Van Sickle:

>>> But surely most people would avoid the ambiguity by saying "two
>>> 100-year-old tunnels", wouldn't they?

"Bill":

>> Depends on how you say it. It contains the same ambiguity if you say
>> "two hundred-year-old tunnels". The ambiguity is avoided if you say
>> "two one-hundred-year-old tunnels". I can't tell from what you wrote
>> which one you had in mind.

Harvey Van Sickle:

> I meant the second one - I should have written it in words.

Then no, I wouldn't expect anybody to say it that way.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Canada... likes to sit up there looking harmless,
m...@vex.net | like the USA's hat... --Anthony McCarron

[Don Phillipson]

"Dingbat" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d480dfe8-3b29-49f0...@googlegroups.com...

In speech -- no; but in writing the distinction is made clear by
correct punctuation.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[HVS]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:24:07 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Harvey Van Sickle:
> >>> But surely most people would avoid the ambiguity by saying "two
> >>> 100-year-old tunnels", wouldn't they?

> "Bill":
> >> Depends on how you say it. It contains the same ambiguity if you
say
> >> "two hundred-year-old tunnels". The ambiguity is avoided if you
say
> >> "two one-hundred-year-old tunnels". I can't tell from what you
wrote
> >> which one you had in mind.

> Harvey Van Sickle:
> > I meant the second one - I should have written it in words.

> Then no, I wouldn't expect anybody to say it that way.

A case study in varying mileages - it would be my natural default.