That would not be a way to say it respectfully. Or desirably!
Probably the best way to think about what I mean by doing it respectfully is “would this make the person unhappy or uncomfortable?” If yes, that’s not what I mean (this is a hard point for me to convey—I can say “respectfully” but it’s hard to map to a case where the person isn’t displeased, though that is what I’m talking about).
So what I would do (and was imagining). The person is comfortable with their weight. Ideally, they’re happy, outgoing, achieving good things, being successful. The person enjoys eating ice-cream, they aren’t going to change this soon, I know this, they know the things I know, and it’s not a problem. If I thought it would bother someone, if there was nothing actually unique and useful I could point out to them, I wouldn’t.
But if they asked me, while feeling pretty comfortable about themselves and looking to branch out, if I thought they might be able to lose weight, maybe be a little healthier, I would say “Yeah, of course!” (with the implication “You’re certainly going to succeed, if that’s what you want to do.”) If they seem bothered, I’d mention that it’s all good, certainly no need to if they don’t want to. (Verbal tone here is important, and unfortunately difficult to express through this text.)
and if I knew them well,
I used this as a shorthand for “this is the sort of thing we could talk about happily, and that the person was interested in”. (In my comment above, I mentally mapped to a case where I might actually convey helpful and/or unique information.)
None of this was very clear about my comment. “working to avoid any stigma”, “respectfully pointing out” and “if they want more ice cream I’ll support their decision” are tightly clustered descriptions of underly-specified things. The main thing is “is the person happy”, “have I made them look bad,” “are they interested,” and “am I actually helping”. I would point something out when the answers are anticipated-yes, anticipate-no, yes, and yes.
Also, ice cream is trivial and not something I would probably ever bring up, unless we were specifically on the topic of “our ideas on the healthiness of ice-cream” (and then I’d only mention my ideas on the healthiness of ice-cream, not whether they should eat it). In the original comment I was answering in form of something that seemed important enough to be an issue.
By the power of Greyskull! I noticed this tastefully funny comment and go to the context to find no less than 6 comments analyzing my hyphenation of ice creams!
Indeed it’s mostly random. I didn’t even notice I was typing it differently—looks like my brain just wasn’t sure how to write it, and gave me different answers at different times.
I mentioned the same thing, but I just discovered a difficulty with our hypothesis. A few comments above, he hyphenated it a couple times even though it wasn’t being used to modify a subsequent word. Instead, it seemed completely random, for he didn’t hyphenate it earlier in the comment despite there not seeming to be any relevant difference in usage.
Doesn’t feel the same to me. One is adjective noun, the other is noun noun. It affects the intonation. “I’m a blue CAR person” vs “I’m a CLOWN car person”.
Not the most natural-sounding example, but the point should nevertheless be intact. It’s noun noun, yet still works out the same way as komponisto’s original noun-adjective example.
It affects the intonation. “I’m a blue CAR person” vs “I’m a CLOWN car person”
I don’t agree; if you’re contrasting blue-car people with red-car people, the stress is on the first component. And if there is no context at all, I would read “blue-car person” as “BLUE-CAR person” (i.e. stress on the modifier relative to the modified, but not on either component of the modifier relative to the other).
OK, so compare “BLUE-CAR person” with “CLOWN-car person”. They still seem different to me. (I didn’t downvote, though I wouldn’t blame people if they downvoted this entire sub-conversation for pedantry.)
I would note that the original point was specifically about the use of the hyphen; there is no need for an example to match the case of interest in every aspect in order to be illustrative of the relevant aspect(s).
though I wouldn’t blame people if they downvoted this entire sub-conversation for pedantry
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. No one was correcting anyone’s grammar. This sub-conversation began with an inquiry by Alicorn about a particular individual’s usage habits. If your implication is that the details of language are somehow not as “worthy” a subject for discussion on LW as many other similarly “esoteric” subjects discussed here, I protest.
Perhaps because it was supposed to modify “discussions” as a single unit: “[ice cream] discussions” rather than “ice [cream discussions]” or whatever (notice that in speech there’s a difference in stress between the first and second, which in writing hyphenation takes the place of).
Probably not necessary this time, but sometimes there’s ambiguity, which is perhaps why there’s a tendency for people to do it anyway. Either that or he just has some idiosyncrasy where he hyphenates it for the hell of it. Perhaps “ice cream” will at some time become a single word (“icecream”)! Such hyphenation is but the first step in the effort to wordify it!!
(Upvoted)
That would not be a way to say it respectfully. Or desirably!
Probably the best way to think about what I mean by doing it respectfully is “would this make the person unhappy or uncomfortable?” If yes, that’s not what I mean (this is a hard point for me to convey—I can say “respectfully” but it’s hard to map to a case where the person isn’t displeased, though that is what I’m talking about).
So what I would do (and was imagining). The person is comfortable with their weight. Ideally, they’re happy, outgoing, achieving good things, being successful. The person enjoys eating ice-cream, they aren’t going to change this soon, I know this, they know the things I know, and it’s not a problem. If I thought it would bother someone, if there was nothing actually unique and useful I could point out to them, I wouldn’t.
But if they asked me, while feeling pretty comfortable about themselves and looking to branch out, if I thought they might be able to lose weight, maybe be a little healthier, I would say “Yeah, of course!” (with the implication “You’re certainly going to succeed, if that’s what you want to do.”) If they seem bothered, I’d mention that it’s all good, certainly no need to if they don’t want to. (Verbal tone here is important, and unfortunately difficult to express through this text.)
I used this as a shorthand for “this is the sort of thing we could talk about happily, and that the person was interested in”. (In my comment above, I mentally mapped to a case where I might actually convey helpful and/or unique information.)
None of this was very clear about my comment. “working to avoid any stigma”, “respectfully pointing out” and “if they want more ice cream I’ll support their decision” are tightly clustered descriptions of underly-specified things. The main thing is “is the person happy”, “have I made them look bad,” “are they interested,” and “am I actually helping”. I would point something out when the answers are anticipated-yes, anticipate-no, yes, and yes.
Also, ice cream is trivial and not something I would probably ever bring up, unless we were specifically on the topic of “our ideas on the healthiness of ice-cream” (and then I’d only mention my ideas on the healthiness of ice-cream, not whether they should eat it). In the original comment I was answering in form of something that seemed important enough to be an issue.
Whoa boy, not any more!
I think you are referring to ice-cream discussions.
Why do you hyphenate “ice cream”?
By the power of Greyskull! I noticed this tastefully funny comment and go to the context to find no less than 6 comments analyzing my hyphenation of ice creams!
Indeed it’s mostly random. I didn’t even notice I was typing it differently—looks like my brain just wasn’t sure how to write it, and gave me different answers at different times.
The official answer appears! We may now rest.
(I assume) because it is being used to modify a following word.
Compare:
vs.
I mentioned the same thing, but I just discovered a difficulty with our hypothesis. A few comments above, he hyphenated it a couple times even though it wasn’t being used to modify a subsequent word. Instead, it seemed completely random, for he didn’t hyphenate it earlier in the comment despite there not seeming to be any relevant difference in usage.
Oh. Well, in that case I would chalk it up to the old-fashioned habit of hyphenating most if not all compound words. (“Magnifying-glass”, etc.)
If you believe wikipedia ice-cream is the older and “proper” spelling.
Doesn’t feel the same to me. One is adjective noun, the other is noun noun. It affects the intonation. “I’m a blue CAR person” vs “I’m a CLOWN car person”.
Compare:
vs.
Not the most natural-sounding example, but the point should nevertheless be intact. It’s noun noun, yet still works out the same way as komponisto’s original noun-adjective example.
I don’t agree; if you’re contrasting blue-car people with red-car people, the stress is on the first component. And if there is no context at all, I would read “blue-car person” as “BLUE-CAR person” (i.e. stress on the modifier relative to the modified, but not on either component of the modifier relative to the other).
OK, so compare “BLUE-CAR person” with “CLOWN-car person”. They still seem different to me. (I didn’t downvote, though I wouldn’t blame people if they downvoted this entire sub-conversation for pedantry.)
I would note that the original point was specifically about the use of the hyphen; there is no need for an example to match the case of interest in every aspect in order to be illustrative of the relevant aspect(s).
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. No one was correcting anyone’s grammar. This sub-conversation began with an inquiry by Alicorn about a particular individual’s usage habits. If your implication is that the details of language are somehow not as “worthy” a subject for discussion on LW as many other similarly “esoteric” subjects discussed here, I protest.
Perhaps because it was supposed to modify “discussions” as a single unit: “[ice cream] discussions” rather than “ice [cream discussions]” or whatever (notice that in speech there’s a difference in stress between the first and second, which in writing hyphenation takes the place of).
Probably not necessary this time, but sometimes there’s ambiguity, which is perhaps why there’s a tendency for people to do it anyway. Either that or he just has some idiosyncrasy where he hyphenates it for the hell of it. Perhaps “ice cream” will at some time become a single word (“icecream”)! Such hyphenation is but the first step in the effort to wordify it!!