Discussion:
"Confusion reined in the market for hours"
Add Reply
DavidW
2017-12-01 05:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye. It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
b***@shaw.ca
2017-12-01 08:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.

bill
Katy Jennison
2017-12-01 08:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
Lacks meaning? "Confusion slowed down market activity", shirley. Not
"reined" but "reined in". (I agree the writer probably had the other on
mind.)
--
Katy Jennison
b***@shaw.ca
2017-12-01 09:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
Lacks meaning? "Confusion slowed down market activity", shirley. Not
"reined" but "reined in". (I agree the writer probably had the other on
mind.)
I understand the intended meaning. But the actual wording: "Confusion reined in
the market for hours" would rarely be written by anyone who is paid money
to write headlines, and never approved by an editor who vets headlines.
They'd see the ambiguity of it and realize that readers might be unable
to grasp the intended meaning.

bill
Katy Jennison
2017-12-01 11:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
Lacks meaning? "Confusion slowed down market activity", shirley. Not
"reined" but "reined in". (I agree the writer probably had the other on
mind.)
I understand the intended meaning. But the actual wording: "Confusion reined in
the market for hours" would rarely be written by anyone who is paid money
to write headlines, and never approved by an editor who vets headlines.
They'd see the ambiguity of it and realize that readers might be unable
to grasp the intended meaning.
I strongly suspect that some people who intend "rein" thinks it's spelt
"reign", and vice versa. And I would bet any money that a lot of people
would read that headline and not see anything wrong with it.

I've mentioned here before that one of the PNAC's objectives was "to
reign in terror".
--
Katy Jennison
John Varela
2017-12-01 18:03:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
Lacks meaning? "Confusion slowed down market activity", shirley. Not
"reined" but "reined in". (I agree the writer probably had the other on
mind.)
I understand the intended meaning. But the actual wording: "Confusion reined in
the market for hours" would rarely be written by anyone who is paid money
to write headlines, and never approved by an editor who vets headlines.
They'd see the ambiguity of it and realize that readers might be unable
to grasp the intended meaning.
I think it is a pun and the writer and the editor knew perfectly
well what they were doing, while somebody else got whooshed.
--
John Varela
DavidW
2017-12-01 19:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Varela
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I understand the intended meaning. But the actual wording: "Confusion reined in
the market for hours" would rarely be written by anyone who is paid money
to write headlines, and never approved by an editor who vets headlines.
They'd see the ambiguity of it and realize that readers might be unable
to grasp the intended meaning.
I think it is a pun and the writer and the editor knew perfectly
well what they were doing, while somebody else got whooshed.
Sorry, I didn't mean it to come across as a headline. It's just a
sentence in the body. I typed in the quote from the print version, but
I've found the article online:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/bitcoins-wild-ride-continues-with-20-per-cent-plunge-in-90-minutes-20171129-gzvlfg.html
Lewis
2017-12-02 09:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
Lacks meaning? "Confusion slowed down market activity", shirley. Not
"reined" but "reined in". (I agree the writer probably had the other on
mind.)
I understand the intended meaning. But the actual wording: "Confusion reined in
the market for hours" would rarely be written by anyone who is paid money
to write headlines, and never approved by an editor who vets headlines.
They'd see the ambiguity of it and realize that readers might be unable
to grasp the intended meaning.
It should have either been

Confusion reigned in the markets

or

Confusion reined-in the markets.

As it is written, it's nonsense.
--
But of course there were the rules. Everyone knew there were rules. They
just had to hope like Hell that the gods knew the rules, too.
DavidW
2017-12-03 01:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
the unit 'reined-in' is not a verb. Grammatically, it would be like:
"Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen there.

The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the meaning
(if intended) is clear.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-12-03 15:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
"rein(ed) in" is usually used without a hyphen, IME. However the use of
a hyphen doesn't change the meaning.

OED:

to rein in
1. trans. fig. To keep under control, restrain.

For instance:

2007 Wall St. Jrnl. 21 Dec. c1/1 Wall Street is abound with
complaints that the central bank didn't do enough to rein in risky
lending practices during the run-up to the housing bubble.
Post by DavidW
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the meaning
(if intended) is clear.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Rich Ulrich
2017-12-03 22:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the meaning
(if intended) is clear.
I am a tad surprised to discover that Google ngram shows
that "confusion reigned" is more common than "chaos reigned"
though the latter is gaining from its start at zero in 1800.

A write should be aware of that idiom, so I wonder if the
pun was an accident. Regular readers of <whatever> might know.
--
Rich Ulrich
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-04 19:26:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the meaning
(if intended) is clear.
I think I would go with the hyphen or change to
"Confusion reined the markets in."
just to be clear about what "in" was part of.

The hyphen would be preferable if the phrase was part of longer sentence where the in might be too far away from the hands of the horseman.

/dps "now for Today's Apocalypse"
DavidW
2017-12-04 20:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
In message
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb,
and the unit 'reined-in' is not a verb. Grammatically, it would be
like: "Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen
there.
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the
meaning (if intended) is clear.
I think I would go with the hyphen or change to "Confusion reined the
markets in." just to be clear about what "in" was part of.
It's already clear. If 'reined in' was intended, it means what it always
means (Confusion restrained, limited, etc. the markets). There's nothing
else it could mean. The hyphen doesn't do anything except make the
sentence ungrammatical, and so isn't an option even if the meaning of
the sentence were unclear.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-05 01:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by DavidW
In message
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb,
and the unit 'reined-in' is not a verb. Grammatically, it would be
like: "Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen
there.
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the
meaning (if intended) is clear.
I think I would go with the hyphen or change to "Confusion reined the
markets in." just to be clear about what "in" was part of.
It's already clear. If 'reined in' was intended, it means what it always
means (Confusion restrained, limited, etc. the markets). There's nothing
else it could mean. The hyphen doesn't do anything except make the
sentence ungrammatical, and so isn't an option even if the meaning of
the sentence were unclear.
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't find it ungrammatical.

The goal is to make the meaning of the sentence clear.

If AUEistas get bothered by whether the author meant "reined in" + "the market"
or "reined [sic]" "in the market",
don't you think steps should be taken to clarify?

/dps
Lewis
2017-12-05 03:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by DavidW
In message
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb,
and the unit 'reined-in' is not a verb. Grammatically, it would be
like: "Blood flowed-over the carpet." You wouldn't put a hyphen
there.
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the
meaning (if intended) is clear.
I think I would go with the hyphen or change to "Confusion reined the
markets in." just to be clear about what "in" was part of.
It's already clear. If 'reined in' was intended, it means what it always
means (Confusion restrained, limited, etc. the markets). There's nothing
else it could mean. The hyphen doesn't do anything except make the
sentence ungrammatical, and so isn't an option even if the meaning of
the sentence were unclear.
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't find it ungrammatical.
hyphenating a verb phrase to eliminate confusion is certainly acceptable
(or a noun phrase, of course, or most any phrase.
Post by s***@gmail.com
The goal is to make the meaning of the sentence clear.
Exactly.
--
'Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. 'We live in harmony with
the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and it's wicked of
them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones with hot lead.'
DavidW
2017-12-05 20:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
I think I would go with the hyphen or change to "Confusion reined
the markets in." just to be clear about what "in" was part of.
It's already clear. If 'reined in' was intended, it means what it
always means (Confusion restrained, limited, etc. the markets).
There's nothing else it could mean. The hyphen doesn't do anything
except make the sentence ungrammatical, and so isn't an option even
if the meaning of the sentence were unclear.
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
Post by s***@gmail.com
The goal is to make the meaning of the sentence clear.
If AUEistas get bothered by whether the author meant "reined in" +
"the market" or "reined [sic]" "in the market", don't you think steps
should be taken to clarify?
No, because "reined" "in the market" does not make sense, so it can't be
correct.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-05 22:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
I think I would go with the hyphen or change to "Confusion reined
the markets in." just to be clear about what "in" was part of.
It's already clear. If 'reined in' was intended, it means what it
always means (Confusion restrained, limited, etc. the markets).
There's nothing else it could mean. The hyphen doesn't do anything
except make the sentence ungrammatical, and so isn't an option even
if the meaning of the sentence were unclear.
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
And it is a verb.
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
The goal is to make the meaning of the sentence clear.
If AUEistas get bothered by whether the author meant "reined in" +
"the market" or "reined [sic]" "in the market", don't you think steps
should be taken to clarify?
No, because "reined" "in the market" does not make sense, so it can't be
correct.
And writers never make mistakes, so there is never any question about what the writer meant, right?

/dps
DavidW
2017-12-05 23:38:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
And it is a verb.
"Reined" is a verb, but the unit "reined-in" is not.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 00:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't
find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
And it is a verb.
"Reined" is a verb, but the unit "reined-in" is not.
We continue to disagree.

/dps
DavidW
2017-12-06 00:33:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't
find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
And it is a verb.
"Reined" is a verb, but the unit "reined-in" is not.
We continue to disagree.
Well, it's not a matter of opinion, but of rules. As others have pointed
out, you can use it as an adjective ("the reined-in markets"), but
there's no verb unless you rescue "reined" from the manacle (hyphen)
you've placed on it by pretending that it's not there.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 01:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't
find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
And it is a verb.
"Reined" is a verb, but the unit "reined-in" is not.
We continue to disagree.
Well, it's not a matter of opinion, but of rules. As others have pointed
out, you can use it as an adjective ("the reined-in markets"), but
there's no verb unless you rescue "reined" from the manacle (hyphen)
you've placed on it by pretending that it's not there.
Ah, prescription at the expense of clarity.

/dps
Richard Yates
2017-12-06 02:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Clearly, I disagree. "Reined-in" may be less common, but I don't
find it ungrammatical.
Then, what part of speech is it? You need a verb there.
And it is a verb.
"Reined" is a verb, but the unit "reined-in" is not.
We continue to disagree.
Well, it's not a matter of opinion, but of rules. As others have pointed
out, you can use it as an adjective ("the reined-in markets"), but
there's no verb unless you rescue "reined" from the manacle (hyphen)
you've placed on it by pretending that it's not there.
I don't think I have ever seen it without the "in". Does that not
strongly suggest that "reined in" is a phrasal verb?
Richard Tobin
2017-12-06 13:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
"Reined" is a verb, but the unit "reined-in" is not.
We continue to disagree.
Well, it's not a matter of opinion, but of rules.
Evidently you disagree about the rules.

-- Richard
b***@aol.com
2017-12-05 01:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet."
Not quite: "rein in" is a transitive phrasal verb and "flow"
is an intransitive verb that just happens to be followed by
"over" in your sentence.

"He turned-down the offer" for instance, would be similar
(and wrong too).
Post by DavidW
You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
The grammar of "Confusion reined in the markets" is fine and the meaning
(if intended) is clear.
Peter Moylan
2017-12-05 03:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet."
Not quite: "rein in" is a transitive phrasal verb and "flow"
is an intransitive verb that just happens to be followed by
"over" in your sentence.
"He turned-down the offer" for instance, would be similar
(and wrong too).
The hyphen is correct when a participle of a phrasal verb is used as an
adjective. Thus, we can refer to a turned-down offer or a reined-in
market. This does not work with flowed-over; as you point out, "flow
over" is not a phrasal verb.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
Certainly not when you're using the verb as a verb.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-05 04:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet."
Not quite: "rein in" is a transitive phrasal verb and "flow"
is an intransitive verb that just happens to be followed by
"over" in your sentence.
"He turned-down the offer" for instance, would be similar
(and wrong too).
The hyphen is correct when a participle of a phrasal verb is used as an
adjective. Thus, we can refer to a turned-down offer or a reined-in
market. This does not work with flowed-over; as you point out, "flow
over" is not a phrasal verb.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
Certainly not when you're using the verb as a verb.
The flowed-over part of the stream bed has smoother rocks than the part that's
remained dry.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-05 22:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet."
Not quite: "rein in" is a transitive phrasal verb and "flow"
is an intransitive verb that just happens to be followed by
"over" in your sentence.
"He turned-down the offer" for instance, would be similar
(and wrong too).
The hyphen is correct when a participle of a phrasal verb is used as an
adjective. Thus, we can refer to a turned-down offer or a reined-in
market. This does not work with flowed-over; as you point out, "flow
over" is not a phrasal verb.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
Certainly not when you're using the verb as a verb.
The flowed-over part of the stream bed has smoother rocks than the part that's
remained dry.
That one is an adjective, no?

I would go for "Confusion reined the markets in for hours.",
but that becomes problematic when the sentence gets longer.

You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.

/dps
DavidW
2017-12-05 23:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The flowed-over part of the stream bed has smoother rocks than the part that's
remained dry.
That one is an adjective, no?
I would go for "Confusion reined the markets in for hours.",
but that becomes problematic when the sentence gets longer.
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
Without it the grammar is fine:
"The markets were reined in for hours by confusion." Or:
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
Richard Heathfield
2017-12-05 23:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The flowed-over part of the stream bed has smoother rocks than the part that's
remained dry.
That one is an adjective, no?
I would go for "Confusion reined the markets in for hours.",
but that becomes problematic when the sentence gets longer.
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
I really don't see what the fuss is about. Confusion /doesn't/ rein in
markets. It sends them completely bananas. So the only sensible way to
read the phrase is to insert the missing 'g'.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
DavidW
2017-12-06 00:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by DavidW
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
I really don't see what the fuss is about. Confusion /doesn't/ rein in
markets. It sends them completely bananas. So the only sensible way to
read the phrase is to insert the missing 'g'.
Panic sends markets completely bananas. Confusion _might_ rein them in,
depending on how it's manifested (e.g., "I don't understand this and
don't know what to do, so I better wait").
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 00:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by DavidW
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
I really don't see what the fuss is about. Confusion /doesn't/ rein in
markets. It sends them completely bananas. So the only sensible way to
read the phrase is to insert the missing 'g'.
Panic sends markets completely bananas. Confusion _might_ rein them in,
depending on how it's manifested (e.g., "I don't understand this and
don't know what to do, so I better wait").
Confusion is a restraining force on the enthusiasm of the market players,
sending prices downwards. Enough restraint of enthusiasm gives rise
to panics.

/dps
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 00:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The flowed-over part of the stream bed has smoother rocks than the part that's
remained dry.
That one is an adjective, no?
I would go for "Confusion reined the markets in for hours.",
but that becomes problematic when the sentence gets longer.
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
The grammar is fine,
but the confidence that that is what the writer meant may be misplaced.

Hence the discussion.

/dps
DavidW
2017-12-06 00:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
The grammar is fine,
but the confidence that that is what the writer meant may be misplaced.
Hence the discussion.
'Reigned' wouldn't work there, so the issue with the original sentence
doesn't arise in this case.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 01:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
The grammar is fine,
but the confidence that that is what the writer meant may be misplaced.
Hence the discussion.
'Reigned' wouldn't work there, so the issue with the original sentence
doesn't arise in this case.
I'm glad your mind-reading works so well. And that writers never make errors.

/dps
DavidW
2017-12-06 02:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
The grammar is fine,
but the confidence that that is what the writer meant may be misplaced.
Hence the discussion.
'Reigned' wouldn't work there, so the issue with the original sentence
doesn't arise in this case.
I'm glad your mind-reading works so well. And that writers never make errors.
So, you would have the hyphen in case readers wonder if this was
intended instead?
"The markets were reigned in for hours by confusion."
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 03:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is still there.
"The markets were reined in by confusion for hours."
The grammar is fine,
but the confidence that that is what the writer meant may be misplaced.
Hence the discussion.
'Reigned' wouldn't work there, so the issue with the original sentence
doesn't arise in this case.
I'm glad your mind-reading works so well. And that writers never make errors.
So, you would have the hyphen in case readers wonder if this was
intended instead?
"The markets were reigned in for hours by confusion."
Now you're being nonsensical, because that seems like an extremely unlikely
rewrite of the original quote.

Confusion reigns.

Given Richard H's post, and that of a skilled writer like BillVan,
it's clear that I'm not the only one who sees confusion in the original.

/dps
DavidW
2017-12-06 03:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by DavidW
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 3:49:41 PM UTC-8, DavidW
Post by DavidW
That wouldn't appease me, I'm afraid. That nasty hyphen is
still there. Without it the grammar is fine: "The markets
were reined in for hours by confusion." Or: "The markets
were reined in by confusion for hours."
The grammar is fine, but the confidence that that is what the
writer meant may be misplaced.
Hence the discussion.
'Reigned' wouldn't work there, so the issue with the original
sentence doesn't arise in this case.
I'm glad your mind-reading works so well. And that writers never make errors.
So, you would have the hyphen in case readers wonder if this was
intended instead? "The markets were reigned in for hours by
confusion."
Now you're being nonsensical, because that seems like an extremely
unlikely rewrite of the original quote.
We were discussing your re-casting of the original and my objection to
your continued use of the hyphen, to which you responded:
"I'm glad your mind-reading works so well. And that writers never make
errors."

I don't know what you meant if you didn't believe 'reign' would fit.
Peter Moylan
2017-12-06 00:45:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
When you use a phrasal verb as an adjective, you hyphenate it when the
adjective comes before the noun. There's no hyphen when it comes after
the noun, therefore no hyphen in this example.

(I have a feeling that this rule applies to any multi-word adjective,
not just the ones formed from phrasal verbs, but for now I can't think
of enough examples to be confident of this assertion.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Rich Ulrich
2017-12-06 18:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:45:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by s***@gmail.com
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
When you use a phrasal verb as an adjective, you hyphenate it when the
adjective comes before the noun. There's no hyphen when it comes after
the noun, therefore no hyphen in this example.
(I have a feeling that this rule applies to any multi-word adjective,
not just the ones formed from phrasal verbs, but for now I can't think
of enough examples to be confident of this assertion.)
I use more hyphens (and more semi-colons) than most people
do. I use them whenever it seems to me that they will tend to
prevent garden-paths or otherwise minimize confusion. I think
that /some/ rule-writers take clarity into account.

The original contained a pun, accidental or otherwise, since
"confusion reigned" is a fixed phrase. If the headline writer
wanted clarity, to rule out the punning meaning, he could have
inserted the hyphen; or used a different metaphor in order to
avoid arguments.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
2017-12-06 04:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
Post by Lewis
It should have either been
Confusion reigned in the markets
or
Confusion reined-in the markets.
As it is written, it's nonsense.
On the contrary, your latter choice is nonsense. You need a verb, and
"Blood flowed-over the carpet."
Not quite: "rein in" is a transitive phrasal verb and "flow"
is an intransitive verb that just happens to be followed by
"over" in your sentence.
"He turned-down the offer" for instance, would be similar
(and wrong too).
The hyphen is correct when a participle of a phrasal verb is used as an
adjective. Thus, we can refer to a turned-down offer or a reined-in
market. This does not work with flowed-over; as you point out, "flow
over" is not a phrasal verb.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by DavidW
You wouldn't put a hyphen there.
Certainly not when you're using the verb as a verb.
The flowed-over part of the stream bed has smoother rocks than the part that's
remained dry.
That one is an adjective, no?
Someone said "This does not work with 'flowed-over'." Is my sentence not an
example of "this"?
Post by s***@gmail.com
I would go for "Confusion reined the markets in for hours.",
but that becomes problematic when the sentence gets longer.
But the sentence isn't longer.
Post by s***@gmail.com
You could also, to appease DavidW, use the adjectival
"The markets were reined-in for hours by confusion.",
but that may detract from the desired emphasis.
Naah.
Snidely
2017-12-01 08:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an
article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been
"reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages,
but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined
in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where
the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so I'll
guess that "reigned" was intended.
"Confusion rained in the market for hours"

A new form of liquidity.

/dps
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
occam
2017-12-01 12:23:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should
have been "reigned", because the article went on to talk about
service outages, but a case can also be made for "reined", because
the confusion "reined in" market activity. It's the first real
example I've come across where the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so
I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
"Confusion rained in the market for hours"
A new form of liquidity.
Like taking the piss?
Snidely
2017-12-04 07:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Snidely
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by DavidW
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye.
Don't look now, but your modifier is dangling.
Post by DavidW
It's from an article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should
have been "reigned", because the article went on to talk about
service outages, but a case can also be made for "reined", because
the confusion "reined in" market activity. It's the first real
example I've come across where the correct word isn't crystal clear.
The "reined" option is grammatically feasible but lacks meaning, so
I'll guess that "reigned" was intended.
"Confusion rained in the market for hours"
A new form of liquidity.
Like taking the piss?
I would not be surprised to find that the case.

/dps
--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
2017-12-06 03:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Always alert to rein/reign mixups, this caught my eye. It's from an article on Bitcoin's wild ride. I suspect that it should have been "reigned", because the article went on to talk about service outages, but a case can also be made for "reined", because the confusion "reined in" market activity. It's the first real example I've come across where the correct word isn't crystal clear.
Oh my, I stayed up all nite with this one.
Loading...