Update 2: Grammar Error on Close Helmet vs. Close-Helmet (image and answer)

"

Antistes wrote:

Names do not have to explain the mechanics of an item. Like "beach chair".

You're a very poor reader. If you paid attention, you would understand my OP says some (not all) names need hyphenation, and that further revision should consider it.

Using 'beach chair' to support your argument is a very poor one. 'Beach chair' isn't a compound word to begin with, nor does it make sense to turn it into a hyphenated compound word.

'Beach chair' also clearly tells us what type of chair it is, where it's used, and what it's used for. Meanwhile, 'Close Helmet,' What is that? There are too many things it can mean or be at once.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

If I were to boast furthermore on what other things and professions I had to master and accomplish first to become a published writer and prominent art and literary critic throughout one of the world's largest sites for art and writing, no one would believe me.

"

Antistes wrote:

"largest" doesn't mean most professional.

You are half wrong. Certain people and administrators I associate with on the site are professional. Those who are members of the site are the ones that are not all professional. There is a difference.

Therefore, since very professional, well-respected people do run deviantArt, majority opinion from users and advocates say it is a very professional site, especially when car companies, game companies, the Coca Cola company, actors and authors consult the site for deviantArt's artists and writers to come up with new ideas, inventions, designs and stories.

Contests are then hosted for participants to join for a chance to win prizes via premium memberships, special accessories, or points and money to buy what you want.

Name a better site that exceeds deviantArt when it comes to competition, innovation, and creativity on a galactic scale.

"

Antistes wrote:

And I am still sure that people who write dictionaries had to do more and prove themselves in places that actually matter - like universities - not the internet.

My education didn't come from the internet. Just because I didn't brag about where I went to college, doesn't give anyone good reason to assume my education is from the internet.

There is a difference between what I am involved in to make a living, and where I was educated. You really didn't read very well when reading my quoted statement.

Long story in short words: you're an arrogant person and just saying "I studied a lot so I know what I say."

Meh, stop reading this thread. Was funny until a certain point

"

Qarak wrote:

Long story in short words: you're an arrogant person and just saying "I studied a lot so I know what I say."

Meh, stop reading this thread. Was funny until a certain point

You should have left the building long ago when you shot yourself in the foot saying English wasn't your native tongue. (That's right, go change your comment(s).)

Just because I put everyone in their place, including yourself, doesn't make me an arrogant individual. You're just cringing your teeth because you still cannot disprove what I brought to the table in this thread.

You're no longer laughing because there was nothing funny about it to begin with. You are now finding that out and you're not liking it.

P.S. Me knowing what I say (as you put it) and knowing what I am talking about are the same difference. You have to know what you're talking about to know what you're saying. If you don't know what you're talking about, such as yourself, isn't it logical to not say anything at all?

lol whatever, you're right. cya

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Just because I put everyone in their place, including yourself, doesn't make me an arrogant individual.

No. It makes you delusional.

Let's sum up:
You think you are better than people who write dictionaries.
You think that if you went to collage you are as smart as professors.
You disregard dictionaries and any other reasoning.
You think just because internet site pays you you are the expert on everything and everyone needs to follow what you say regardless of facts.
You are the only one here who keeps saying that what you say is right. Get a hint already.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Guess what? I already blew these sources out of the water in that they don't include any argument against my claims. Until then, I cannot take these third-party sources seriously.

Following that logic every word in the dictionary is wrong cause they don't give a reason.
OMG ALL THE WORDS ARE WRONG! HELP! I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING CAUSE WORDS MIGHT MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT! AAAAAAA

o, please, HMG, tell me what words mean, since hundred years of experience, literary professors and experts are not as qualified as you, a deviant.art employee, to tell me what words mean and how to write them down.

/to GGG - this is sarcasm use to prove a point, I'm not trying to be offensive.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Yes I can! I have already questioned and argued this helmet's name. I don't care how dead the guy is who coined the helmet's name. On an astronomical level and unrelated note, if someone back in 2006 could convince most of the world and Astronomers on why Pluto is not or should not be considered a planet, I (or anyone else) can argue other things like the name of an ancient helmet.

The governing bodies on what is acceptable in the written word, anything, are people like me who care to make something more correct if proven wrong.

Again, just because someone is dead doesn't mean their inventions, views, theories, etcetera and etcetera cannot be questioned or challenged. It is foolish to argue otherwise.

Let me get this straight:
So what you're saying is that since what you are suggesting is more correct (regardless of what has become of common use) and that since there is strictly no governing body about ancient helmet naming (e.g. You can't just un-planetize Pluto, the IAU has an authority for officiality), means that you can correct it?

That is fine by me, you may be needlessly pedantic, but hey sure. I get it. I now understand your perspective.

"

Antistes wrote:

Let's sum up:
You think you are better than people who write dictionaries.

Quote me, if you can, I said what you continue to assume. You will not be able to do it. I never said I knew more than those who write dictionaries. That's what you convince yourself to believe. I said they are not always right so long the human brain is behind it, including computer generated things. Half of that just said was elaboration to my original statement(s).

What I did say was these third-party sources, including the dictionary, could quite possibly be wrong because they do not talk about what my OP points out. I did not say every way dictionaries use hyphens is incorrect. Moreover, I said some of the ways dictionaries do not include hyphens for certain words and names, should consider hyphens for these words and names.

"

Antistes wrote:

You think that if you went to collage you are as smart as professors.

Your assumptions give shadows to inexistent things. How do you know you're not speaking to a former English Professor who did go to college for 11+ years? All you can do is guess and nothing more.

Keep guessing and never knowing.

"

Antistes wrote:

You disregard dictionaries and any other reasoning.

Everyone has room to talk, sure, but if that's all someone can do and not a step more, why should I consider anything they say?

Dictionaries, religious texts, literary magnum opuses, theories, etc. are challenged all the time. You cannot directly quote I said dictionaries are wrong on everything.

"

Antistes wrote:

You think just because internet site pays you you are the expert on everything and everyone needs to follow what you say regardless of facts.

You are wrong again! Quote me I said these things.

In case you have not been following my posts, here is an excerpt detailing what I wrote to someone else, when saying, "Fortunate for me, I do not want followers. If anyone comes along, leave me if ever I am in your impression of wrong. Too many seek the world’s belief in their claims; I seek the world’s hate and scrutiny to study mine until proven otherwise with devastating evidence."

Going back to where I left off, what I did say was being a critic, including but no limited to, a literary critic, is what I do for a living. Discussing innovative ideas, different ways to approach things, or to example, how to fit a 2-foot triangle in a 1-inch circle, is my business. This is what I do. If you cannot brave challenging mutual opinion on a global scale, you won't get anywhere as a critical thinker, artist or writer.

"

Antistes wrote:

You are the only one here who keeps saying that what you say is right. Get a hint already.

That is correct, and I will continue to insist saying I am not wrong until proven otherwise. None of you have been able to do it, and third-party sources thrown in my face thus far, including the dictionary, have proved to be insufficient on hyphenation use regarding rare case scenarios as said 'Close Helmet,' and other words and names like it.

How fucking old are you, and where do you find the time to post all this shit?
No offence just, you're very weird and boring

"

ArtificialDream wrote:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Yes I can! I have already questioned and argued this helmet's name. I don't care how dead the guy is who coined the helmet's name. On an astronomical level and unrelated note, if someone back in 2006 could convince most of the world and Astronomers on why Pluto is not or should not be considered a planet, I (or anyone else) can argue other things like the name of an ancient helmet.

The governing bodies on what is acceptable in the written word, anything, are people like me who care to make something more correct if proven wrong.

Again, just because someone is dead doesn't mean their inventions, views, theories, etcetera and etcetera cannot be questioned or challenged. It is foolish to argue otherwise.

"

ArtificialDream wrote:

Let me get this straight:
So what you're saying is that since what you are suggesting is more correct (regardless of what has become of common use) and that since there is strictly no governing body about ancient helmet naming (e.g. You can't just un-planetize Pluto, the IAU has an authority for officiality), means that you can correct it?

That is fine by me, you may be needlessly pedantic, but hey sure. I get it. I now understand your perspective.

You had it right until you said, "...since there is no governing body about ancient helmet naming." and, "(e.g. You can't just un-planetize Pluto, the IAU has an authority for officiality), means you can correct it?"

My OP includes, but is no longer limited to, the naming of ancient equipment. It now talks about how others names made up of words --- not definite names such as Bryan, Jessica, Bob, etc. --- can have the error 'Close Helmet' does without the hyphenation when it should have one.

To the other half of what you said, my unrelated yet powerful example regarding Pluto was that back in 2006, someone came forth with the term dwarf planet, which then excluded Pluto from the category of actual planets in our Solar System. Therefore, the main point in my argument is that if someone back in 2006 could step forward and say, "Hey, Pluto should no longer be considered a planet because . . ." then people like me can challenge the rules of grammar in the names of certain objects, etc.

With that in mind, some (not enough scientists) believed Pluto should have remained a classified planet, and that what we now call dwarf planets should also be added to the roster of planets along with Pluto.

Since that is no longer the case, Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. Before the definition of dwarf planet came along, the definition of the word planet didn't have an official meaning.

Long ago, when the asteroid Ceres was discovered by Giuseppe Piazzilike, other astronomers found countless other small celestial bodies like it. They were then classified as asteroids because it made no sense to consider them actual planets since they weren't big enough to dominate their surroundings, for example, being able to sweep up asteroids, comets, and other debris to clear their orbital paths.

The same thing happened to Pluto in 2006, 83 years after 1930 because astronomers discovered other celestial bodies like it that were just as big or bigger, which is the reason why these celestial bodies are now categorized as dwarf planets.