• Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          German…Grammer…Nazi…

          Sir, this is a Noncredible Wendy’s, not a Highly Credible Outback Steakhouse.

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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)’

    • khapyman@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the other hand in Finnish that’s can be one word: maalitolpansiirtosota. No sense implied.