Grammar workshop: a question

[policywonk]

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!

x posts

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

Sigh.

'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.