3

When I was writing an essay, I wanted to write that traveling without a tour guide is friendly to individual travelers because it conduces to a flexible schedule. A phrase "dog-friendly hotel" came into my mind, so I wondered if I can write "individual-traveler-friendly".

6
  • 2
    Can you provide a full sentence? As an adjective, it's a bit awkward but might be OK in some contexts.
    – Stuart F
    May 18, 2023 at 13:39
  • 1
    Every person (whether traveling or not) is an individual, so I'd prefer solo traveler-friendly (which occurs at least once in Google Books, whereas individual traveler-friendly isn't recorded at all). May 18, 2023 at 14:58
  • ...here's another example with the older British spelling traveller. I think it's up to you whether to use one hyphen or two. May 18, 2023 at 15:00
  • @FumbleFingers 'traveller' is still the correct spelling in British English. May 19, 2023 at 8:41
  • @MichaelHarvey: I meant the older spelling (which is British). But when my browser spell-checker objects to British spelling I often just accept its advice for the sake of a quiet life. (You can't fight City Hall or US cultural imperialism! :) May 19, 2023 at 9:59

2 Answers 2

1

The construction XXXX-friendly is a "productive" format, suitable for a wide range of XXXX.

But every person (whether traveling or not) is an individual, so I'd prefer solo traveler-friendly. And at least that's indexed by Google Books, whereas individual traveler-friendly isn't recorded at all. And here's another example with the British spelling traveller.

I think it's up to you whether to use one hyphen or two (my examples above feature both orthographies).

-1

No, while "friendly to individual travellers" and "individual-traveller-friendly" are valid English phrases, they don't apply in your context.

From Merriam-Webster:

friendly adjective
3 b
: designed or intended to accommodate particular needs, users, etc.

The term "dog-friendly" means that the hotel is accepting of and willing to cater to travellers with dogs.

It's incorrect to say that travelling without a tour guide is designed or intended to accommodate the particular needs of individual travellers.

You're describing something like "practical" or "convenient" or "well-suited" to individual travellers, rather than "friendly" to them. A mode of travel, itself, cannot be "friendly".

10
  • Why the downvotes? please comment
    – gotube
    May 19, 2023 at 4:16
  • It was my downvote. You seem to be saying individual-traveler-friendly is inherently invalid, but so far as I'm concerned it's just a somewhat "less natural" alternative to solo traveler-friendly (which per my comments under the question, I found written instances of in both BrE and AmE sources). The construction "XXXX-friendly" is "productive" for neologisms, and can be used with a wide range of terms for XXXX. May 20, 2023 at 11:38
  • Thank you for your answer!I was to write an essay to support my point that traveling without tour guide has its advantage. If I cannot use the adj. "individual-traveler-friendly", which word should I chose to summarize it when I provide details like traveling without tour guide allows for personal freedom like changing travel itinerary.
    – 庄怀玉
    May 20, 2023 at 12:23
  • The problem actually is whether the pattern "adj.+adj.+n." is correct. I am not very proficient in English so I might confuse individual and solo, I will check which is better for my original text.
    – 庄怀玉
    May 20, 2023 at 12:32
  • If the pattern "adj.+adj.+n" can be used, I think I can create a new adj. and other people can understand my meaning even if it doesn't exist.
    – 庄怀玉
    May 20, 2023 at 12:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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