PugJesus@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDefense@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year ago5th generation warfarelemmy.worldimagemessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1603arrow-down111
arrow-up1592arrow-down1image5th generation warfarelemmy.worldPugJesus@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDefense@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square37fedilink
minus-squareKatzastrophe@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up126·1 year agoIf anyone wants to know, “Beweglichertorpfostenkrieg” is literally just “moving goal posts war” disguised as a german compound word.
minus-square🐑🇸 🇭 🇪 🇪 🇵 🇱 🇪🐑@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up59arrow-down5·1 year agoAs a German, this word was compounded incorrectly anyway. Adjectives don’t get compounded. So it would be “Beweglicher Torpfostenkrieg”
minus-squarecircuscritic@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up61arrow-down5·1 year agoLook guys, I found the Grammer Nazi.
minus-squareOoops@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up13arrow-down2·edit-21 year agoIt’s actually quite easy to correct, so why not mention it? Make that “moving goal post war” a “goal post movement war” and now it’s all nouns and valid to compound them.
minus-squarecircuscritic@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up25arrow-down2·edit-21 year agoGerman…Grammer…Nazi… Sir, this is a Noncredible Wendy’s, not a Highly Credible Outback Steakhouse.
minus-squareTurun@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21·edit-21 year agoThis is wrong. That would describe a certain type of war, but specify that the war is movable. I think the “Torpfostverschiebekrieg” mentioned in another comment would be the best solution.
minus-squareSubArcticTundra@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·1 year agoBut surely wouldn’t that imply the existence of such thing as a ‘goal post war’? Because the term is meant to mean ‘(moving goal post) (war)’, and not ‘(moving) (goal post war)’
minus-squareFleetingTit@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year agoBeweglicher-Torpfosten-Krieg looks about right.
minus-squareChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-27 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squarekhapyman@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoOn the other hand in Finnish that’s can be one word: maalitolpansiirtosota. No sense implied.
minus-squareGork@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoHmm they can try using that as the new Паляниця (Palanitsya).
minus-squaresharpiemarker@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoIs it not a German compound word?
minus-squarewert_straffer@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21·1 year ago„Torpfostenbewegungskrieg“ would be correct. I‘d prefer „Torpfostverschiebekrieg“ though.
minus-square🐑🇸 🇭 🇪 🇪 🇵 🇱 🇪🐑@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17arrow-down1·1 year agoIt’s incorrect actually! We don’t compound adjectives (Beweglicher)
minus-squaresharpiemarker@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·1 year agoInteresting! Thank you for the explanation.
minus-squareParsnipWitch@feddit.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 year agoWe do it though… it’s just not correct.
If anyone wants to know, “Beweglichertorpfostenkrieg” is literally just “moving goal posts war” disguised as a german compound word.
As a German, this word was compounded incorrectly anyway. Adjectives don’t get compounded. So it would be “Beweglicher Torpfostenkrieg”
Look guys, I found the Grammer Nazi.
It’s actually quite easy to correct, so why not mention it?
Make that “moving goal post war” a “goal post movement war” and now it’s all nouns and valid to compound them.
German…Grammer…Nazi…
Sir, this is a Noncredible Wendy’s, not a Highly Credible Outback Steakhouse.
This is wrong. That would describe a certain type of war, but specify that the war is movable.
I think the “Torpfostverschiebekrieg” mentioned in another comment would be the best solution.
But surely wouldn’t that imply the existence of such thing as a ‘goal post war’? Because the term is meant to mean ‘(moving goal post) (war)’, and not ‘(moving) (goal post war)’
Beweglicher-Torpfosten-Krieg looks about right.
Ah yes that makes sense
deleted by creator
On the other hand in Finnish that’s can be one word: maalitolpansiirtosota. No sense implied.
Hmm they can try using that as the new Паляниця (Palanitsya).
Is it not a German compound word?
„Torpfostenbewegungskrieg“ would be correct. I‘d prefer „Torpfostverschiebekrieg“ though.
It’s incorrect actually! We don’t compound adjectives (Beweglicher)
Interesting! Thank you for the explanation.
We do it though… it’s just not correct.