Donmai

alias full_body_tattoo -> full-body_tattoo

Posted under Tags

NNescio

I don't think it's necessarily used that way though, unlike for dark-skinned or foo-themed.

Some compound words like "full(-)body scanner" or "full(-)body checkup" seem to be written both ways, with the nonhyphenated form being more common. This also seem to apply in official or technical sounding writing.

As for "full(-)body tattoo"... well, the nonhypenated form is more common, though I am unable to find official/technical sources. Mostly because most of those don't talk about, well, "body tattoos".

Generally, like a lot of other English hyphenated words, it depends on how the word is constructed, or rather, conceptualized by the speaker. So Something like "skinned human" or "themed pillow" don't make quite as much sense (well, actually they do, but they have a different meaning when used that way). So the word is formed via dark- + skinned and or foo- + themed, which requires hyphens in those cases (forming an adjective), then joined to their respective words without one.

Or in short, [dark] [skinned human]] and [food] [themed pillow] don't make much sense, but [dark skinned] [human] and [food themed] [pillow] do, so the hyphens are added to make the 'order of joining' clear.

But "body scanner", "body checkup" and "body tattoo" are different. Those make sense on their own. And adding full before them doesn't change the 'base meaning' of those words. So it makes sense to call something as a [full] [body scanner], [full] [body checkup], or [full] [body tattoo]. So the hyphen isn't necessary here.

Of course, one may also add hyphens to force the interpretation [full body] [scanner], [full body] [checkup], and [full body] [tattoo]. But while there is some slight difference in nuance (mostly because "full-body" now functions as an adjective to the other words), most of the time the distinction doesn't matter, so those words wind up written without hyphens even in technical/official sources (well, except for *_tattoo, can't really find any examples for that).

"Full-body statue" works differently though. "Body statue" sounds weird, almost like it's redundant. So here it's more natural to add the hyphens to force the 'right' order of joining.

So yeah, overall, this is another one of those "weird English subtle nuances that doesn't quite make sense to an ESL speaker" thingy. Though anyhow, this is how hyphens usually work in general. They are often added to make clear a certain "order of joining", and there's often a rule of thumb when they're applied (usually it goes "put hyphens when you use a compound word" as an adjective/adjectival noun before another noun), but this is often broken. Usually when native speakers feel the 'disambiguation' isn't necessary; in those cases they tend to drop the hyphens even if the normal 'rule' usually say one puts them on.

And sometimes the opposite happens too. For noun + gerund verb combos to describe an activity, the general rule is to not use hyphens (unless it's used as an adjectival noun before another noun). So, "decision making" as a noun is written without the hyphen. But "decision-making process" is written with one, because it's now use as an adjectival noun modifying process. But rules of thumb aside, it's because "decision making process" can cause confusion because it looks like "a decision" is "making" a "process". Instead of a single phrase.

So going on with that example, we have "novel reading". Activity of reading a novel. By the usual rules of thumb, one doesn't need to use a hyphen when using this as a noun (to describe activity). But "I like novel reading" is potentially confusing, because "novel" can also be an adjective, i.e. "I like to read stuff that is new". So in this case some native speakers would write it as "I like novel-reading", to make it clear that they are referring to the activity of "reading a novel". To an ESL learner this might seem like another random break in the 'rules of thumb', but the central reason is the same: hyphens are used for disambiguating how words are joined. If this disambiguation is unnecessary, then it is often dropped. This analogy likewise applies to "full(-)body".

--

Though, I guess, overall I'm... ambivalent on this matter, because putting the hyphen on isn't really wrong either.

Updated

Reply
NNescio

nonamethanks said:

The proper name would be body suit, but we can't use that because of bodysuit.

All tattoos are body tattoos, so a "full" "body tattoo" to me makes no sense conceptually.

Because a "facial tattoo" is not usually considered a "body tattoo", despite the face being technically part of the body.

Yes, English is weird like that. (Though the be fair, ALL languages have their own idiosyncrasies.)

You will also note that a lot of things described as "body tattoo" or "full body tattoo" also seem to exclude the face. And a lot of people, including those writing scientific papers will use the phrase "body and facial tattoo(s)" if they want to be clear they are referring to both. This construction pops up very often when discussing, say, Maori cultural practices.

Reply
CoreMack

I'm fairly sure "full-body" is, strictly speaking, more correct, though it is seen frequently without the hyphen in practice. "Split-body workout" would look bizarre without the hyphen and the more reputable sources use the hyphen. Furthermore, "full-bodied" always has the hyphen.

[full body] [tattoo] is more clearly what we're describing here than [full] [body tattoo], the latter really sounds more like a complete rather than incomplete tattoo.

Reply
NNescio

CormacM said:

I'm fairly sure "full-body" is, strictly speaking, more correct, though it is seen frequently without the hyphen in practice. "Split-body workout" would look bizarre without the hyphen and the more reputable sources use the hyphen. Furthermore, "full-bodied" always has the hyphen.

The same journal has a many different papers, some of which use the hyphen and some without. Scroll down. You will note that it principally depends on what word "full(-)body" gets attached to.

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier. It depends on the word. And reputable, official, technical-sounding sources will often use both forms, with preference for one or the other depending on what word it is attached to.

You will also note that the form "full-body" tends to be preferred when an actual body is involved, "full-body resistance exercise", "full-body musculoskeletal model", but when more abstract things are discussed (that don't involve the direct involvement of an actual body), the form without the hyphen is preferred, such as for "full body suit" and "full body harness".

--

Edit: Though again, I suppose, they is no harm with this alias per se. Miiiiight as well vote yes if that's what the majority seems to prefer. Plus it's faster to type the hyphen than an underscore.

Updated

Reply
CoreMack

NNescio said:

The same journal has a many different papers, some of which use the hyphen and some without. Scroll down. You will note that it principally depends on what word "full(-)body" gets attached to.

This is exactly what I mentioned earlier. It depends on the word. And reputable, official, technical-sounding sources will often use both forms, with preference for one or the other depending on what word it is attached to.

Fair enough, this is true. It does depend on which word it's attached to.

You will also note that the form "full-body" tends to be preferred when an actual body is involved, "full-body resistance exercise", "full-body musculoskeletal model", but when more abstract things are discussed (that don't involve the direct involvement of an actual body), the form without the hyphen is preferred, such as for "full body suit" and "full body harness".

And in this case it's an actual human body referred to, nothing abstract (though, respectfully, I fail to see how harness is more abstract than resistance exercise).

In any case, Ngram shows that "full-body tattoo" is almost twice as popular as "full body tattoo". In the end it's not worth arguing about too much, there's no real significant difference between the two.

Reply
NNescio

CormacM said:

In any case, Ngram shows that "full-body tattoo" is almost twice as popular as "full body tattoo". In the end it's not worth arguing about too much, there's no real significant difference between the two.

Well, that settles it conclusively then. Thanks for providing the statistics.

Reply
1