1. Published on Amazon? If you have a book, e-book, or audiobook available on Amazon.com, we'll promote it on WritingForums.org for free. Simply add your book to our Member Publications section. Add your book here or read the full announcement.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  1. victo

    victo Active Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2

    ... were non-life-threatening

    Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by victo, Jun 22, 2015.

    Which is the correct punctuation of "non life threatening" below?

    (1) The injuries were non-life-threatening.
    (2) The injuries were nonlife threatening.
    (3) The injuries were non-life threatening.

    Thank you.
     
  2. victo

    victo Active Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Please delete the extra posts. My computer froze and I pressed "enter" multiple times. I now have four identical posts. Sorry.
     
  3. victo

    victo Active Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Or is there a way that I can delete the three extra posts?
     
  4. victo

    victo Active Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    Or is there a way that I can delete the three extra posts?
     
  5. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    9,776
    Likes Received:
    6,343
    I would just say "The injuries were not life-threatening."
     
    Frankovitch, SwampDog and RevGeo like this.
  6. victo

    victo Active Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would, too, but you always here news reporters say, "... were non-life-threatening." So how would you punctuate it? I say two hyphens are mandatory here.
     
  7. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    9,776
    Likes Received:
    6,343
    Given the assumption that someone insists on phrasing it this way at all, yes, I agree with two hyphens.
     
  8. thirdwind

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,410
    Likes Received:
    2,921
    Location:
    Boston
    Yes, using two hyphens is correct.
     
  9. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,584
    Likes Received:
    2,884
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    I have to agree with others here and say, "non-life-threatening."
     
  10. SwampDog

    SwampDog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    109
    Location:
    Back in Blighty
    Double hyphenation looks clumsy. I'd just use not life-threatening.

    The danger of double hyphenation as I see it - (non-life)-threatening.
     
  11. jannert

    jannert Contributing Member Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    8,415
    Likes Received:
    7,929
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well the first example may look a bit clumsy, and I think it should be reworded as @ChickenFreak suggested. But the second two are actually wrong.

    Nonlife is not a word. So that's wrong, because you're presenting it as if it is.

    And non-life is completely weird. What does non-life mean? The hyphen is used to connect two words that, when taken together, constitute a new meaning. So non-life? Something considered inanimate, like a rock? So a rock is threatening? (Well, okay, it can be, if somebody is throwing one at you, or it's hurtling down a mountainside and about to crush your car ...oh, wait, no, it's the rock itself that is being threatened! Because the stuff that is inanimate is being threatened ....gosh, where are we going with this...?)

    Erm ...stick with the first, if you must. Or re-write, for a better sounding (and looking) phrase.
     

Share This Page