# Newsstand/News Stand



## vachecow

I saw an ad that had the word newsstand in it.  Shouldn't it be News Stand?
I always love finding typos in the paper


----------



## DesertCat

Sorry, but my dictionary shows it as newsstand.


----------



## vachecow

Darn, well thank you anyway!!  Thats one typo that I won't have to make!!


----------



## badger

DesertCat said:
			
		

> Sorry, but my dictionary shows it as newsstand.



Hi DesertCat.

I just can't see it as one word.

The two "S's" together seem to prevent it, in my mind.

Badge.


----------



## lsp

badger said:
			
		

> Hi DesertCat.
> 
> I just can't see it as one word.
> 
> The two "S's" together seem to prevent it, in my mind.
> 
> Badge.


Unusual, but correct. It is newsstand.


----------



## Artrella

badger said:
			
		

> Hi DesertCat.
> 
> I just can't see it as one word.
> 
> The two "S's" together seem to prevent it, in my mind.
> 
> Badge.




Sorry Badge... it is *newsstand*  

Definition
*newsstand *   [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a table or temporary structure used as a small shop for selling newspapers and magazines outside in public places

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

Bye bye


----------



## vachecow

That IS strange....are there any other compound words out there that when they combine, two of the same letters end up in a row?


----------



## Focalist

Artrella said:
			
		

> Sorry Badge... it is *newsstand*


53,440 British and Irish web pages (or should that be "webpages"?) say otherwise.

Stand up for your rights, Badge! It's "news stand" if you want it to be "news stand". There is no legislation (not even the Homeland Security Act) governing English orthography thus far. Let's keep it that way!

Spellers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but the threat of a Language Academy à la française...  

F


----------



## Sharon

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> That IS strange....are there any other compound words out there that when they combine, two of the same letters end up in a row?


Bookkeeper? Roommate?

I have seen both "newsstand" and "news stand," though. I think I have seen it more often as "newsstand" but with further thought, it doesn't make as much sense, because we wouldn't use 
"hot dogstand."  But then, there is "bandstand"  and I can't imagine it as two words.

Sharon.


----------



## lsp

Focalist said:
			
		

> 53,440 British and Irish web pages (or should that be "webpages"?) say otherwise.


I've noticed that in these Forums, Google has become a more often consulted and quoted arbiter of proper spelling and grammar than dictionaries. I've suggested several times how worrisome this is to me. 

Google will return results that include blogs of teenagers, or non-native english speakers, song lyrics, quotes of those and other sources that are neither hoping, claiming nor expecting to be part of a statistic that will ultimately be used to justify spelling in a language forum... even forums questioning spelling and articles that, for example, marvel at the misspellings of words like newsstand.


----------



## DesertCat

I was curious about compound words in general.  According to my Franklyn Covey Style Guide book (primarily used for business writing) compound words may be written as a single word, with a hypen between the two words or as two separate words.  The form of the compound varies with custom and usage as well as with the length of time the compound has existed.

They include guidelines which state that it should be written as a single word when the first word of the compound receives the major stress in pronunciation.  Last, when in doubt, check your dictionary.    

My dictionary shows "hot dog" as two words when describing the (inedible) food item. I admit "hot dogstand"  looks wrong to me. I don't believe dogstand is a word. Hotdog (slang for showboating) is one word in my dictionary.

~Alice


----------



## DesertCat

At one point I read that "Web page" and "Web site" is the correct usage. There was an explanation as to why it was correct but I don't remember what it was anymore.  That's how I always write it but I'm not so sure it's correct anymore.  Google seems to prefer website.  It may have evolved over time.


----------



## vachecow

Sharon said:
			
		

> because we wouldn't use
> "hot dogstand."


Thanks Sharon...i was thinking about that for a while....you thought of more than I did    Anyway, wouldnt it be hotdog stand because hotdog is a compound word allready?


----------



## Sharon

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> Thanks Sharon...i was thinking about that for a while....you thought of more than I did    Anyway, wouldnt it be hotdog stand because hotdog is a compound word allready?


I thought of another compound word with two of the same letters in a row. It came to me when I went to work, and stepped into the *barroom*.   

In answer to your question, I'm pretty sure it would be "hot dog stand."  "Hot dog" is a two word compound noun, like "swimming pool."

Sharon.


----------



## badger

Maybe with newsstand we are seeing the evolution of a word that may finally end up as newstand.    

(Or perhaps it could go the other way and branch off into “greennewsstand”  and from there become "greennewsstandowner” or “greennewsstanddirector” even.)

Just coddin about the bracketed bit.  In other words I amn’t really serious about it.

Badge. 

ps... I had a look at my OED (1990 ed) after posting this and news-stand is there but not newsstand.


----------



## Ralf

badger said:
			
		

> In other words *I amn’t* really serious about it.


Please don't blame me for diverting from the original point of this thread (which, by the way, is most interesting to me), but I got somehow curious about the bold marked expression above. Is this correct spelling or a more colloquial or regional way of spelling? I know e. g. "I am not", "I'm not" or "I ain't" but never came across "I amn't". On the other hand we say 'he isn't', 'they aren't' ..., so "I amn't" could be as quite as logical, but it looks strange to me.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Cheers.


----------



## vachecow

I think that it is like* I ain't *


----------



## badger

Ralf said:
			
		

> Please don't blame me for diverting from the original point of this thread (which, by the way, is most interesting to me), but I got somehow curious about the bold marked expression above. Is this correct spelling or a more colloquial or regional way of spelling? I know e. g. "I am not", "I'm not" or "I ain't" but never came across "I amn't". On the other hand we say 'he isn't', 'they aren't' ..., so "I amn't" could be as quite as logical, but it looks strange to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers.



Hi Ralf and vach (I meant to say "hi vach" in my first post in this thread but overlooked it, please excuse me)

Amn't means "I am not".

Some people here in Dublin use it in speech, myself included.

examples:  
speaker a) Who's going to the party tonight?   
speaker b) John *is* but I amn't! (I'm not)

speaker a) Are you complaining?
speaker b) No, I amn't! (I'm not)

It's heard less and less these days and is probably frowned on by teachers etc.

Personally i like to retain the old ways of saying things and get great pleasure listening to some of our older Dubliners speaking.

Badge.


----------



## Ralf

Although I said it looked strange to me, I didn't mean that I would not like it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Many thanks for your explanation.

Kind regards.


----------



## badger

Re amn't


I meant to explain how it's pronounced.

am (as one usually say's it) + int

so, *amint* is the best way I can describe the pronunciation.

I don't know how phonetic symbols are used so this is the best I can do.



> Ralf.......I didn't mean that I would not like it



I never thought that you did Ralf.

Badge.


----------



## vachecow

Thanks Badger......I wonder if it is said in the US?  Maybe I'll have to start it!


----------



## Focalist

lsp said:
			
		

> I've noticed that in these Forums, Google has become a more often consulted and quoted arbiter of proper spelling and grammar than dictionaries. I've suggested several times how worrisome this is to me.
> 
> Google will return results that include blogs of teenagers, or non-native english speakers, song lyrics, quotes of those and other sources that are neither hoping, claiming nor expecting to be part of a statistic that will ultimately be used to justify spelling in a language forum... even forums questioning spelling and articles that, for example, marvel at the misspellings of words like newsstand.


ISP (or is it LSP? -- the default font on these forums always leaves me in doubt), what do reputable dictionaries base their dicta upon? Why, USAGE!

Do you think that past lexicographers did not know how to discard the evidence of people writing who wrote "english speakers" for "English-speakers" ? They assembled all the evidence that they could find -- and they exercised their judgement/judgment.

The corpus of real English that Google presents us with is a genuine tool, more up to date than even the latest dictionary can be -- *but we have, of course, to exercise our judgement in using that corpus*.

It is sheer, blind *fundamentalism* to rely on printed dictionaries to say that, for instance, "news stand" is a "misspelling". Show me the blogs, the non-native English speakers who wrote "news stand" on sites at :uk and :ie and tell me what proportion of the total they are. Some people believe that the Bible is the word of God, but who on earth ever accorded the publishers of dictionaries the right to issue diktats concerning *OUR OWN LANGUAGE*? Sometimes I despair of the "home of the free"...

F

Sorry for the "shouting", but I feel very strongly about this.


----------



## lsp

Focalist said:
			
		

> ISP (or is it LSP? -- the default font on these forums always leaves me in doubt),!


 It's an L, thanks for asking. _Forists_ use both, so I answer to both.



> what do reputable dictionaries base their dicta upon? Why, USAGE.
> 
> Do you think that past lexicographers did not know how to discard the evidence of people writing who wrote "english speakers" for "English-speakers" ? They assembled all the evidence that they could find -- and they exercised their judgement/judgment.
> 
> The corpus of real English that Google presents us with is a genuine tool, more up to date than even the latest dictionary can be -- *but we have, of course, to exercise our judgement in using that corpus*.
> 
> It is sheer, blind *fundamentalism* to rely on printed dictionaries to say that, for instance, "news stand" is a "misspelling". Show me the blogs, the non-native English speakers who wrote "news stand" on sites at :uk and :ie and tell me what proportion of the total they are. Some people believe that the Bible is the word of God, but who on earth ever accorded the publishers of dictionaries the right to issue diktats concerning *OUR OWN LANGUAGE*? Sometimes I despair of the "home of the free"...
> 
> F


I do see your point, but dictionaries/language reference manuals change over time, they'd consider the breakdown of the usage in Google results (I'd hope), “assemble the evidence” as you put it, for the things I listed and others, that affect the weight of what the results mean. I see @ in place of "at" all the time now - here, too (and I always wonder how much time is saved BTW in typing Shift-2 ) - or  "u r" for "you are" and it just makes me wonder (see, I always say I wonder, or I worry, because I have not resolved how I feel yet, I am not a blind fundamentalist, and I just want to bring it to the attention of impassioned forists so the debate will help me decide) what reliance on Google means. The language of the Internet may not be a fair representation of language usage, or it may be an element of usage. I don’t know. But I don’t think it can yet be known.

But I think if we spoke and had time to get into it, we'd agree more than we seem to. It is because I don't see anyone "exercising judgement using that corpus"  - I just see raw numbers spouted - that I voiced my reservation.



> Sorry for the "shouting", but I feel very strongly about this.


I didn't realize you were shouting, but I'm all for passion


----------



## sallyjoe

On reading this last thread, I've checked in the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary for the word newsstand and it's down as 'newsstand' and as 'news-stand' so both can be used. 



			
				lsp said:
			
		

> I've noticed that in these Forums, Google has become a more often consulted and quoted arbiter of proper spelling and grammar than dictionaries. I've suggested several times how worrisome this is to me.
> 
> 
> Google will return results that include blogs of teenagers, or non-native english speakers, song lyrics, quotes of those and other sources that are neither hoping, claiming nor expecting to be part of a statistic that will ultimately be used to justify spelling in a language forum... even forums questioning spelling and articles that, for example, marvel at the misspellings of words like newsstand.


----------



## vachecow

But it still isn't correct as news stand?


----------



## Focalist

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> But it still isn't correct as news stand?


It's that usage of the word "correct" in your question that's incorrect in my view, vc.

"Newsstand", "news-stand", and "news stand" are all correct, in that they are all used and all understood without ambiguity.

"Standnews", "hand-stand", and "tidningskiosk" *would*, on the other hand, all be incorrect English for a place from which to buy newspapers.

F


----------



## webtrek

I read Time (paper edition) for about twelve years, and, correct me if i'm wrong, they've always had "newsstand". I believe the U.S. try to make new compunds as fast as possible, while the U.K. are a bit more conservative on that. Surprisingly, i have found some older ESL teachers go as far as to stick to the spelling of 20 or 40 years ago. I think words like book-shop, head-master, good-bye (used as "see you") are the ones no one ever agrees on. The 'marriage' of new words from hyphenated compunds has apparently skyrocketed with the internet revolution (Weblish).


webtrek


----------



## vachecow

webtrek said:
			
		

> The 'marriage' of new words from hyphenated compunds has apparently skyrocketed with the internet revolution (Weblish).


Thanks F.....its amazing what the web can do to a language isn't it?


----------



## beigatti

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> That IS strange....are there any other compound words out there that when they combine, two of the same letters end up in a row?


 
How about Bookkeeper?
Roommate?
cannot?

(that's without my mornng coffee)

Jo-Ann


----------



## webtrek

Amazing, i agree ... I think the English language has a remarkable ability to make new words. Once a college professor told me how compounds are born and evolve (hope i remember this correctly):

1. a new definition is coined using a adjectival noun (i.e. before another noun): _book keeper / good bye_

2. The two words are 'universally' recognised as a new one and are joined by a hyphen: _book-keeper / good-bye_

3. After a while the hyphen is taken away to make it easier to write the word: _bookkeeper / goodbye_ 

Exception: compounds will keep the hyphen when used as adjectives: _my_ _book-keeping task is boring_

What do you think? Is this the way compounds work? 
Webtrek


----------



## Focalist

More or less, webtrek, but English being English there are lots of exceptions, and changes in fashion.

In the 19th century people wrote "Victoria-station", "Oxford-street", etc. in place of today's "Victoria Station", "Oxford Street". British newspapers, at least, went on writing "Bow-street" and the like until well into the last 50 years.

You need to be careful too where the first part of a compound was originally a genune adjective:

A "greenhouse" is not the same thing as a "green house", for instance (as the different stress pattern also shows). I can say "there's an old brown greenhouse in my garden; it used to be white". And "don't eat red blackberries: they're still green".

F


----------



## vachecow

How about the word prerogative? Nobody says it like that....I'd bet that that will change in 50 years


----------



## Focalist

Nobody says prerogative like what, vache?   

_I_ say it like this: prI"rQg@tIv (SAMPA)

F


----------



## cuchuflete

Artrella said:
			
		

> Sorry Badge... it is *newsstand*
> 
> Definition
> *newsstand *   [Show phonetics]
> noun [C]
> a table or temporary structure used as a small shop for selling newspapers and magazines outside in public places
> 
> (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
> 
> Bye bye


Don't believe everything you may find in a dictionary.  Newsstands are not limited to outdoors locations!

Cuchu


----------



## cuchuflete

Focalist said:
			
		

> 53,440 British and Irish web pages (or should that be "webpages"?) say otherwise.
> 
> Stand up for your rights, Badge! It's "news stand" if you want it to be "news stand". There is no legislation (not even the Homeland Security Act) governing English orthography thus far. Let's keep it that way!
> 
> Spellers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but the threat of a Language Academy à la française...
> 
> F


According to my Curmudgeon's Dictionary of the English Language, it's Kiosk!
C


----------



## cuchuflete

badger said:
			
		

> Maybe with newsstand we are seeing the evolution of a word that may finally end up as newstand.
> 
> (Or perhaps it could go the other way and branch off into “greennewsstand”  and from there become "greennewsstandowner” or “greennewsstanddirector” even.)
> 
> Just coddin about the bracketed bit.  In other words I amn’t really serious about it.
> 
> Badge.
> 
> ps... I had a look at my OED (1990 ed) after posting this and news-stand is there but not newsstand.



Hello Badge!
My trusty old 1944 Shorter OED [it's not really shorter, just less fat!] has it with a hyphen.  Do you think they forgot to convert all hyphens into esses?
Slovenly editing if you ask me.

Abrazos,
Cuchu


----------



## Artrella

Focalist said:
			
		

> 53,440 British and Irish web pages (or should that be "webpages"?) say otherwise.
> 
> Stand up for your rights, Badge! It's "news stand" if you want it to be "news stand". There is no legislation (not even the Homeland Security Act) governing English orthography thus far. Let's keep it that way!
> 
> Spellers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but the threat of a Language Academy à la française...
> 
> F





Ooooohhh!!!  Profe!!!   I didn't know that!!! *Thank God this forum has you*!!!  
Now I know!!!

Sorry Badge, I'm with you... let's do it "news stand", it's nicer!!!


----------



## modgirl

lsp said:
			
		

> I've noticed that in these Forums, Google has become a more often consulted and quoted arbiter of proper spelling and grammar than dictionaries. I've suggested several times how worrisome this is to me.
> 
> Google will return results that include blogs of teenagers, or non-native english speakers, song lyrics, quotes of those and other sources that are neither hoping, claiming nor expecting to be part of a statistic that will ultimately be used to justify spelling in a language forum... even forums questioning spelling and articles that, for example, marvel at the misspellings of words like newsstand.



I could not agree more!!  I'm just waiting for the day when definately becomes the preferred spelling because so few know that the correct spelling is *definitely*!!

Although the internet can be helpful in many ways, it should never be used in place of a dictionary or other authoritative resources.

I've never heard of "news stand."  It's always newsstand (in the US, that is).


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> I could not agree more!!  I'm just waiting for the day when definately becomes the preferred spelling because so few know that the correct spelling is *definitely*!!
> 
> Although the internet can be helpful in many ways, it should never be used in place of a dictionary or other authoritative resources.
> 
> I've never heard of "news stand."  It's always newsstand (in the US, that is).



Dear ModGirl...
Careful what you wish for...."Authoritative resources" indeed!  Wouldn't one assume that educational publishers are such authoritative resources?  Yet you and I have just dissected the idiocy of these authorities.

I often find discussions of current usage here in the forums which are correct, though contrary to what one finds in a dictionary.  Why?  Because the lexicographers use current usage to update, expand, and modify their dictionary entries, and because the process can take years.  From data collection to publication, five years or more may transpire.

Un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## modgirl

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> Dear ModGirl...
> Careful what you wish for...."Authoritative resources" indeed!  Wouldn't one assume that educational publishers are such authoritative resources?  Yet you and I have just dissected the idiocy of these authorities.



True, of course!  Perhaps I should have said that one should be very careful in what sources he chooses to validate his argument.  Doing a search on "Google" to show that the (very incorrect)  definately  is commonly used doesn't mean that the spelling is correct!  Anyone can have a website, but the information isn't necessarily accurate or correct.

*Generally* speaking, however, I would trust a dictionary over other sources on the internet.


----------



## vachecow

Focalist said:
			
		

> Nobody says prerogative like what, vache?
> 
> _I_ say it like this: prI"rQg@tIv (SAMPA)
> 
> F


Sorry F    I need to stop generalizing in an international forum....
what I _meant _ to say was, do people still pronounce it like "prerogative"......i've only ever heard it as "perogative"


----------

