Or log in with:
Register to join the discussion, get discounts and more.
This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has 13 messages.)
I'm editing my dad's book (what kind of mug am I? No need to answer that.)
He had written:
'[x] was directly intermediate between the other two.'
I have changed it, on the grounds of 'intermediate between' being a tautology, to:
'[x] intermediated between the other two.'
However, I'm still not sure whether it's grammatical, let alone elegant. Should I just revert to the original?
I would welcome Senora's input, and also advice from any other fully paid-up pedants.
x was an intermediate?
Jeremy, you have neatly side-stepped my problem there! Was it an intermediate between? And if not, how the frick do I finish the sentence?
Stupid intermeemeemee word.
or should that be; x was an intermediary?
you dunnit again!
Then i'd say it sounds better the first way.
But really, i didn't even understand the question so please feel free to ignore me!
What does the sentence mean? Is X taller than Z and shorter than Y? Or is X Z's boss, and Y's subordinate? Or did X do the communication between Y and Z?
Just think of my posts as Bumping
'X was an intermediary between the other two.'
Actually, that does sound better than my version.
NQC - it's about species (book is about Darwin being a big-chinned plagiarising bet-wetter). X is an intermediate species between (aargh, it's impossible to NOT use it) V and Y, in evolutionary terms.
So V evolved into X which evolved into Y, basically?
I think the original usage is better than yours then - intermediated means acted as an intermediary, to me ...
I don't think 'intermediate between' is a tautology. I'm not happy with the passive voice thing, but there you go ...
I think you're right.
As you were, ladies.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.