Forum: Author Hangout

You might consider changing 'bullet-ridden' to 'bullet-riddled'. I am not sure a bullet can ride something.

Bullet-riddled is obviously the safe option but bullet-ridden has been around since at least the 19th century and is in common usage - everyone understands its meaning. I would regard it as an acceptable idiomatic expression.

ETA - in this sense, ridden has nothing to do with transport, yet the dead-tree dictionary next to my desk (from the Oxford stable) lists its meaning under 'ride'! However, technically you'd expect the bullets to still be present cf pox-ridden.

AJ

bullet-ridden has been around since at least the 19th century and is in common usage - everyone understands its meaning.

They do? I'd consider it a mistake. I've certainly seen my share of bullet-riddled signs - may have even helped contribute to a few of those in younger days.

http://throwgrammarfromthetrain.blogspot.com/2013/06/riddle-me-this-bullet-ridden-corpse.html

Do your homework: Such search for "-term- etymology".

I immediately got this from Wikipedia:

Etymology 1

See ride (verb)
Verb

ridden

past participle of ride

Adjective

ridden (comparative more ridden, superlative most ridden)

Full of.
Oppressed, dominated or plagued by.

Usage notes

Usually used as combining form: guilt-ridden, etc.

or even better, consult etymonline.com:

ridden (adj.)

mid-14c., from past participle of ride (q.v.). Sense evolution, via horses, is from "that which has been ridden upon, broken in" (1520s) to, in compounds, "oppressed, taken advantage of" (1650s).

And how, pray tell, does one oppress a sign or take advantage of a sign by shooting holes in it? Can you even oppress or dominate or plague an inanimate object?

Even more importantly, why use a term that is inaccurate when you have the more accurate term at hand?

Just because a lot of people make the mistake does not mean the mistake is the new correct answer. For an example, see Darwinism :)

Just because a lot of people make the mistake does not mean the mistake is the new correct answer.

Actually it does, because language is descriptive not prescriptive, and that's one of the ways it changes.

Chaise lounge, anyone? ;)

AJ

And how, pray tell, does one oppress a sign or take advantage of a sign by shooting holes in it? Can you even oppress or dominate or plague an inanimate object?

You're misinterpreting an alternative definition. "Oppressive" doesn't mean it's 'oppressing the sign', instead it says the sign is 'inflicted' with an oppression from an outside source. Much like a chicken-pox survivor bears the telltale poxmarks, the sign bears evidence of earlier gunshots. It's more evidence of cause than it is the cause itself.

If you read many etymologies, there's a certain archaic use of language in the definitions themselves. Once you get used to it, the odd phrasing no longer bothers you as much. Harping on the words used is like attacking Shakespeare for his 'dated' language.

it says the sign is 'inflicted' with an oppression from an outside source.

Please explain how you can 'inflict an oppression' on an inanimate object (the sign) with an outside source.

op·pres·sion əˈpreSHən
noun
*prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
*the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
*mental pressure or distress.

This just gets weirder and weirder.

Yeah, no. I disagree that it was ever an acceptable substitute.

Pox-ridden, much like flea-ridden or even disease-ridden conveys the communicability or portability of the 'thing' where as there is no way to spread bullets after they have been fired.

Another definition I read:

Ridden, after all, means "burdened, oppressed, harassed by": debt-ridden, hag-ridden, conscience-ridden. A riddle is a sieve, so riddled is the word for something (or someone) full of holes

You might consider changing 'bullet-ridden' to 'bullet-riddled'. I am not sure a bullet can ride something.

"Riddle me this, oh bullet-riddling sign. What goes up, but never comes down? Ha-ha-ha!"

You might consider changing 'bullet-ridden' to 'bullet-riddled'.

I originally wrote "riddled with bullets." When I Googled it, I found out "ridden" is the right word, not "riddled."

Since SB wrote 'a sign riddled with bullets' in his OP, I think it's obvious that writing 'bullet-ridden' in the excerpt was a simple typo.

Not a typo.

I though it's "riddled with bullets" but "bullet-ridden."

But I guess my first instincts were correct. That's what happens when you try to be "right" and use Google.

As to my original question, I'm not going to include the population. All I was trying to do was show it as a small town.

Thanks all.