dry footnotes

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "dry footnotes" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to footnotes that are straightforward, factual, or lacking in elaboration or commentary. Example: "The article was well-researched, but the dry footnotes made it difficult to engage with the material."

✓ Grammatically correct

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

59 human-written examples

The dry and academic footnotes citing the latest psychological scholarship on homosexual behaviour (including one fictionalised report) are set in sharp contrast to the vibrant and complex character of Molina that they purport to explain.

The Guardian - Books

There was almost no one in the political field to touch Low except for the Dutchman Louis Raemaekers during World War I, and Raemaekers was bitter where Low was dry and crisp, with footnotes of rumbling laughter.

Encyclopedia Britannica

"Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions," is a dry work of historiography buttressed by a 24-page bibliography and hundreds of footnotes citing ancient Sanskrit texts.

The New York Times - Books

And footnotes.

The New York Times - Books

Why footnotes?

The Economist

("The footnotes! The footnotes!").

The Guardian - Opinion

But these are footnotes.

The Economist

And yet: footnotes?

The New York Times

There will be footnotes.

The New York Times - Books

Too many footnotes.

The New Yorker

And endless footnotes".

Independent

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "dry footnotes" to describe academic or technical writing where the footnotes are purely informational and lack commentary. For example: "The report was thorough, but the dry footnotes made it a bit tedious."

Common error

Avoid using "dry footnotes" to describe footnotes in creative or narrative works. Footnotes in such contexts are often more elaborate, humorous, or insightful, making "dry footnotes" an inappropriate descriptor.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "dry footnotes" functions as a descriptive term, where "dry" modifies "footnotes" to indicate their style and content. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is usable in written English. It points to the nature of the added information in a text.

Expression frequency: Missing

Frequent in

Science

0%

News & Media

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Science

0%

News & Media

0%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, "dry footnotes" describes footnotes that are factual and straightforward, lacking embellishment or commentary. As confirmed by Ludwig AI, the phrase is grammatically sound and usable, but its frequency is limited. While it's most fitting in formal or academic writing, remember to avoid overusing it in creative contexts. If "dry footnotes" doesn't quite capture the nuance you're aiming for, consider alternatives like "concise footnotes" or "factual footnotes".

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

terse footnotes

This alternative emphasizes the brevity and conciseness of the footnotes.

concise footnotes

This alternative highlights the succinctness and lack of unnecessary detail in the footnotes.

brief footnotes

This alternative focuses on the short length of the footnotes.

factual footnotes

This alternative underscores the objective and informative nature of the footnotes, devoid of personal opinion or analysis.

unadorned footnotes

This alternative implies that the footnotes are simple and without embellishment.

plain footnotes

This alternative suggests that the footnotes are straightforward and unremarkable.

minimalist footnotes

This emphasizes a stark reduction of information in the footnotes.

basic footnotes

This implies a simple and essential set of footnotes.

matter-of-fact footnotes

This emphasizes the direct and pragmatic nature of the footnotes, similar to "factual footnotes".

understated footnotes

This highlights the subtle and subtle nature of the footnotes.

FAQs

What does "dry" mean in the context of "dry footnotes"?

In the phrase "dry footnotes", "dry" refers to the style and content of the footnotes being straightforward, factual, and lacking in elaboration or commentary. It suggests a purely informational approach.

When is it appropriate to use the phrase "dry footnotes"?

The phrase "dry footnotes" is appropriately used when describing academic, technical, or formal writing where the footnotes serve a purely informational purpose without any additional analysis or opinion.

What are some alternative ways to describe footnotes that are not "dry"?

If footnotes are not "dry", you might describe them as detailed, insightful, elaborate, humorous, or comprehensive depending on their specific characteristics.

Is it incorrect to use "dry footnotes" to describe endnotes?

The term "dry footnotes" can be applied to both footnotes and endnotes, as the distinction lies in their placement (at the bottom of the page versus at the end of the document) rather than their style or content. If the endnotes are straightforward and factual, "dry endnotes" is also appropriate.