non interest bearing bond
Opinicus
non interest-bearing bond?
non-interest-bearing bond?
I'm really getting wrapped around the axle with this phrase. In a text
that I'm editing the author uses all three (albeit on different days I
think). What are the group's thoughts? Is there a rule I can quote to
justify one choice over another?
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com
CDB
I would use both hyphens. I don't know about a rule, but I would put
a hyphen between "non" and another modifier, unless I could join them
as one word ("non-productive bond"), and I would put one into
"interest-bearing bond".
>>
In previous discussions of the matter, some people have advocated a
longer hyphen between elements that are less tightly connected: I
suppose that would be "non--interest-bearing bond". You could use
that as a bargaining position and let them talk you down to two simple
hyphens.
Don Phillipson
news:5dkbo69jhirvtft67...@4ax.com...
> non-interest bearing bond?
> non interest-bearing bond?
> non-interest-bearing bond?
>
> I'm really getting wrapped around the axle with this phrase. In a text
> that I'm editing the author uses all three (albeit on different days I
> think.)
These words do not discriminate between
(1) what N.Americans call a "stripped bond" or "stripped
coupon," i.e. a single bond that earns interest but is split
into two distinct financial "products," principal and
(expected) interest, sold separately;
(2) a bond that truly earns no interest (as in Islamic
banking?)
Rephrasing to clarify this may by itself solve your editing
problem. But the writer should be unambiguously told he
is obliged to use a single technical name for each different
entity.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
mm
<gez...@spamcop.net.which.is.not.invalid> wrote:
>non-interest bearing bond?
>non interest-bearing bond?
>non-interest-bearing bond?
>
>I'm really getting wrapped around the axle with this phrase. In a text
>that I'm editing the author uses all three (albeit on different days I
>think).
If you can figure out what day of the week he used which form, then
you can check what day you are doing the editing, and use the
corresponding form. After that, insist on doing all re-editing on
the same day of the week.
If you can't do that, then 2 hyphens.
> What are the group's thoughts? Is there a rule I can quote to
>justify one choice over another?
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 28 years
Bill McCray
If an adjective is followed by two nouns, the question is which noun does
the adjective modify. A hyphen between the adjective and the first noun
indicates that the adjective modifies that noun. The same convention can
be used to decide for a three-noun series whether a hyphen is needed
between the first two. My usual rule of thumb:
If you rearranged the phrase, would you keep the first two words together.
If so, hyphenate them in their original order. Applying it to the phrase
(ignoring the "non" for now), would you write:
interest bond that is bearing
bearing bond that has interest
bond that is interest bearing
I would always choose the third one, indicating that a hyphen is needed in
"interest-bearing bond".
Now for the "non": "non" is a prefix, not an independent word, so there
should not be space after "non" and the question is whether it should be
"non-interest-bearing" or "noninterest-bearing". Normally a prefix should
not be separated from its root word. We don't hyphenate suffixes, so why
hyphenate prefixes? There are certain situations where a hyphen should be
used. Some that I can think of right now are (1) if the root word is
capitalized (pre-Christmas events), (2) if the root is a number
(pre-1980s), (3) if the prefix ends with a vowel and the root begins with
one, especially the same vowel (re-enter; exception - cooperate, don't know
why), (4) to avoid confusion (un-ionized vs unionized), (5) the root is
hyphenated (non-interest-bearing).
Bill in Kentucky
Eric Walker
Only the last is proper form. The point of hyphenation is to show that
the words have to be considered as a unit to convey their proper sense.
A bond that bears interest is an interest-bearing bond; one that does not
is a non-interest-bearing bond.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Opinicus
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> > non-interest bearing bond?
> > non interest-bearing bond?
> > non-interest-bearing bond?
> Only the last is proper form. The point of hyphenation is to show that
> the words have to be considered as a unit to convey their proper sense.
> A bond that bears interest is an interest-bearing bond; one that does not
> is a non-interest-bearing bond.
That's my thinking too, but I somehow I have a dislike the cavalcade
of hyphens.
I've decided to go with "noninterest-bearing", primarily on the
grounds that it's the one version that the author did not use. ;-)
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com
Eric Walker
As you will, but that specifies a bond that bears noninterest. If you
feel you absolutely, positively cannot abide two hyphens in the same
modifier, "non-interestbearing" is the slightly less repugnant
alternative.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Bill McCray
It seems to me that "interest-nonbearing" is reasonably accurate, but would
take some thought for the reader to understand.
Bill in Kentucky
Glenn Knickerbocker
> feel you absolutely, positively cannot abide two hyphens in the same
> modifier, "non-interestbearing" is the slightly less repugnant
Then why not just go the full monty with "noninterestbearing"?
¬R
Bill McCray
Then we could list our noninterestbearingbond purchases.
Bill in Kentucky
Pat Durkin
"Glenn Knickerbocker" <No...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:4NudncuuVdRb5hrQ...@bestweb.net...
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
Instead of putting an entire phrase into one word, why not just put
the entire language into a word?
Alternatively, why not just reword the sentence to avoid the
confusion?
Pat Durkin
"Bill McCray" <billm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1n7y1kvsjwxob.1txdy85btj67j$.dlg@40tude.net...
or... noninterestbearingbondpurchases, and so forth.
Pavel314
> "Bill McCray" <billmcc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
This is beginning to sound like German.
Pat Durkin
"Pavel314" <pin...@jhmi.edu> wrote in message
news:2b260e50-2ada-46dd...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Und so weiter ?
It is currently in the bottom 20% of lookups on Merriam-Webster.com.
Oh I know you mean linking so many words into one sense.
(Just kind of proud of looking up that expression, which I have only
heard spoken, long ago.)