2

It sometimes happens that a question comes up with very poor wording to the point that readers cannot really understand what the asker is actually asking.

I focused on this: "The animals which have flowing blood if killed or wounded. But I need to make a noun phrase using Adj+noun". (See link below.)

To mean: The animals that have blood leaving their body if killed or wounded.

As a result, my answer contains a series of verbs that could describe that blood leaving the body....And, along with verbs, I provided adjective + noun phrases such as: spurting blood.

One comment under my answer said the OP wanted an adjective + noun and ould not

This is a case in point: bloody or having flowing blood

Having read the question many times, I came to the conclusion that it is about asking how blood exits the body when it is injured. The body of an animal or person.

It would seem, moreover, that the OP did not want to clarify the question.

So, some posters found various synonyms for bloody, such as sanguineous. And although an injured body can be bloody, the word bloody is not used to describe how blood leaves the body. Bloody as a descriptive word means covered in blood.

In cases like this, it would seem to me that downvoting what is a perfectly good answer is not great.

What can be done to encourage OP's to clarify confusing questions.

| |
2

readers cannot really understand what the asker is actually asking.
@Lambie

If a question is unclear, ambiguous, lacking in effort and also fails to provide the minimal evidence of research, do not reward the OP with an answer and risk receiving downvotes. Avoid posting any answer until the question has been clarified. That is the most frequent piece of advice offered by experienced Stack Exchange users across the entire network.

When an OP does not respond to requests of clarifications a community member is left with basically three choices.

  1. Not post an answer, but move onto a better question.
  2. Vote to close the question for being unclear or lacking in focus.
  3. Edit the question, tactfully, and wait until the OP responds. If the OP agrees with the edit, then go ahead and post an answer.

As for the question

The author states, (emphasis mine)

What do we call a being which has flowing blood? Do we call it a bloody being?

This suggests that the OP is looking for either two terms. The term to describe a bleeding victim, a person or animal covered in blood OR a word for creatures (including reptiles) who possess a circulatory-system. In neither case does it appear to be asking for a word that describes how that blood is shed.

| |
  • "The animals which have flowing blood if killed or wounded. But I need to make a noun phrase using Adj+noun". Which can be read: "The animals which have blood flowing out of them when killed or wounded. So, your reading is not the only one. And I am already aware of your three points. So my question obviously concerns multiple readings. There is no more justification for yours than for mine. The OP does not mention a circulatory system per se. – Lambie Sep 12 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .