Timeline for Hyphenation of SI prefixes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feb 9, 2015 at 4:11 | comment | added | geometrian |
I read nanocomponent as nanocompetent . Nanocompetency is a brilliant neologism if I've ever heard one.
|
|
Jan 5, 2015 at 18:08 | answer | added | Jon Hanna | timeline score: 3 | |
Jan 5, 2015 at 17:52 | history | edited | Jon Hanna | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
There's a separate box for edit summaries. Right here, in fact.
|
Nov 17, 2014 at 17:35 | history | edited | metavektor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 37 characters in body; edited title
|
Nov 17, 2014 at 17:17 | comment | added | choster | Even if there were SI rules for hyphenating prefixes, you aren't really using SI, i.e. you are not using the prefixes to describe units of measure. A nanocomponent is not one billionth of a component. So there would be no officially "correct" usage. | |
Nov 17, 2014 at 16:47 | comment | added | Barmar | I think they're usually not hyphenated, but I suspect it depends on how common the word is. I don't think I've ever seen them hyphenated when used with measuring units, like millimeter or megawatt. But when creating neologisms, it might be more common so that the intent stands out. | |
Nov 17, 2014 at 16:34 | comment | added | John Lawler | Hyphens (like apostrophe's) are inaudible, so they really don't matter, as far as the SI is concerned. Just get the prefix right and let the hyphens fall where they may. | |
Nov 17, 2014 at 15:09 | comment | added | metavektor | Hmm, yeah, hyphenation would have been a better choice. 'It really doesn't matter' is an unsettling answer, but since I've only paid attention to consistency thus far, why changes things now? | |
Nov 17, 2014 at 14:47 | comment | added | curiousdannii | As with compound nouns, it really doesn't matter. There's no right or wrong hyphenation. Just do what looks best. | |
Nov 17, 2014 at 14:34 | comment | added | tchrist♦ | What is “hyphenization”? The word you are looking for is probably hyphenation. But do try not to megadwell on how some of these words might happen to be SI prefixes, for such microanalysis would be more exacting of precision than the sense intended by their writers. | |
Nov 17, 2014 at 14:34 | review | First posts | |||
Nov 17, 2014 at 17:17 | |||||
Nov 17, 2014 at 14:34 | history | asked | metavektor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |