Talk:never smoker

I don't think wiktionary is in a position to give a specific number like "100" but the figure could be included as part of a citation from an authority like the U. S. Center for Disease Control. Kappa 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

never smoker
Is this valid at all, without the hyphen? Used at all? In common use? --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 2005, Fred Hirsch, IASLC Textbook of Prevention and Detection of Early Lung Cancer, p 38
 * ... and the age-specific lung cancer death rate does not decline to that of the never smoker.
 * 1991, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Convention, Abstracts of Research Papers, p127
 * In 1968 subjects classified themselves according to their present smoking behavior as either a smoker, ex-smoker or never smoker.
 * 1990, DIANE Publishing Company, Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General, p197
 * Line A represents an immediate and complete reversal of the effect of smoking, so that the quitter almost instantly assumes the rate of the never smoker.


 * These are all from the very first page of the gbc search. Whether "never smoker" or "never-smoker" should be the main entry, and which is the alternative spelling, is up to dispute (and it's a good thing Connel MacKenzie has ignited debate about this); it can't really be disputed that both are used. Language Lover 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why hello. Wasn't the result of the debate to use relative measure, when a correct form (e.g. never-smoker) is so overwhelmingly prevalent?  --Connel MacKenzie 06:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you'll need to provide some sort of evidence that the unhyphenated version is incorrect or non-prevalent. Going through the first forty b.g.c. hits for "never smoker" (which includes both versions), it seems that while there's a strong preference (almost 90/10) for the hyphenated version when the noun is used attributively, there's only a fairly weak preference (not even 60/40) when it's used substantively; so while I do think it makes sense to take never-smoker as the main term and never smoker as a variant of it, I think if you want to eliminate never smoker, you'll have to actually make a case for doing so. So, start talking. —RuakhTALK 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of Connel's and Ruakh's research, I switched the role of never smoker and never-smoker so now the former is an alternative spelling of the latter. Thanks, you guys both rock, we can always count on both of you to catch things like this! :D Keep up the good work!!! I did a similar change to ever smoker and ever-smoker. :-) Language Lover 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —RuakhTALK 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)