[Grammar] help with hyphen

[HeartShape]

Hi,

What's the difference between the two sentence?

1. I have a six-year old son.

2. I have a six-year-old son.

 

[emsr2d2]

Sentence 2 is grammatical. Sentence 1 is not. That's the difference.

 

[HeartShape]

Can you elaborate on the grammatical?

 

[emsr2d2]

You need two hyphens to use "six-year-old" as an adjective.

 

[HeartShape]

You need two hyphens to use "six-year-old" as an adjective.

Ahh... without the two hyphens what would sentence 1 mean?

 

[jutfrank]

Ahh... without the two hyphens what would sentence 1 mean?

It would obviously mean the same thing but it would be written incorrectly.

 

[emsr2d2]

We would be able to work out what it meant easily but it would still be wrong. If we wanted to be pedantic (and we frequently do), we could claim that it is about a son who is both "six-year" and "old".
"Six-year" can be used as an adjective in other contexts.
"Old" is an adjective.

"I have a six-year old son" could be seen to be describing a son using two separate adjectives. (Of course, if that were the case, it would need a comma.)

I think the simplest thing for you to do is worry less about the grammatical reason for it, and just learn that when we talk about someone's age, that's how we write it!

 

[HeartShape]

We would be able to work out what it meant easily but it would still be wrong. If we wanted to be pedantic (and we frequently do), we could claim that it is about a son who is both "six-year" and "old".
"Six-year" can be used as an adjective in other contexts.
"Old" is an adjective.

"I have a six-year old son" could be seen to be describing a son using two separate adjectives. (Of course, if that were the case, it would need a comma.)

I think the simplest thing for you to do is worry less about the grammatical reason for it, and just learn that when we talk about someone's age, that's how we write it!

That's what the author said, describing the sentence as an old son where the second sentence describes the son's age.

I just wanted to see other people’s interpretation to see if there is a deeper understanding of the difference when punctuations are introduced. And I know it's easy, but I'm exploring all the possible avenues of how punctuations can change meanings.

 

[GoesStation]

Punctuation is uncountable. It isn't used in the plural.

 

[HeartShape]

Here's another. What's the difference between the two sentences?

1. She gave back the stolen vehicle registration.
2. She gave back the stolen-vehicle registration.

 

[emsr2d2]

Without knowing what either of them is supposed to mean, it's hard to say. Was the vehicle stolen or was the vehicle registration stolen?

 

[HeartShape]

Without knowing what either of them is supposed to mean, it's hard to say. Was the vehicle stolen or was the vehicle registration stolen?

The sentence is actually a bit confusing for me since in UK, we use the term number plate to mean "vehicle registration". Vehicle registration is something we register with DVLA.

Anyway, the author says it’s the registration of the stolen vehicle. Does that mean the number plate of the vehicle?

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't call the number plate the vehicle registration. I call the number plate the number plate. What's written on it is the car's registration number (even though it consists of letters and numbers). It is sometimes shortened to just "reg".

I assumed the "vehicle registration" was some sort of paperwork that is meant to stay with the car as it goes from one owner to the next. In the UK, that's the V5C, commonly referred to as the log book.

 

[HeartShape]

I don't call the number plate the vehicle registration. I call the number plate the number plate. What's written on it is the car's registration number (even though it consists of letters and numbers). It is sometimes shortened to just "reg".

I assumed the "vehicle registration" was some sort of paperwork that is meant to stay with the car as it goes from one owner to the next. In the UK, that's the V5C, commonly referred to as the log book.

I seem to have misinterpreted the vehicle registration as an entity for stolen registrations.

So basically, the car was stolen and she gave back the registration of the stolen car, is that right?

 

[emsr2d2]

I have no idea. How does one steal a car and then only return the registration? (Especially given that we don't even agree on what "registration" means in this context!)

 

[HeartShape]

I have no idea. How does one steal a car and then only return the registration? (Especially given that we don't even agree on what "registration" means in this context!)

Okay. So it's the registration that was stolen and she returned it. Now that's correct.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't know if it's correct or not. Do you mean she stole the number plate?

 

[HeartShape]

I don't know if it's correct or not. Do you mean she stole the number plate?

Don't know because it's not in the sentence. The subject is the stolen-vehicle registration.

 

[GoesStation]

The first is incorrect. The second describes an unlikely situation where some kind of official document recording the theft of a vehicle exists and the document has been returned.

 

[HeartShape]

The first is incorrect. The second describes an unlikely situation where some kind of official document recording the theft of a vehicle exists and the document has been returned.

Yes. That's how I interpret sentence 2 but why would the author write an unlikely event like that?