Odd hyphens.
AWILLIS957
In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is stormed by
townsmen.
The meaning is perfectly clear, but is there not a slight miscue here, to the
effect that this was once a convent refuge? On the other hand, if the hyphens
are dropped, a different miscue arises, as you might think initially that
"convent" is to be the subject and "turned" the main verb. Is the writer is
trying to tell us too much in too few words?
What do you think?
Peasemarch.
MEow
http://www.aol.co.uk said:
I read it as being a refuge for convent-turned-women, and that
confuses me.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"I get tired of being told what we are supposed to be. There is a
man or woman out there to appreciate every kind of man or woman.
Be yourself." ClaySkye (a.a.)
Aaron J. Dinkin
I think you're right that the writer is trying to tell us too much in too
few words. However, if those are the words that the writer is intent on
using, the correct way to punctuate it would be to use a hyphen between
"convent" and "turned", and an en dash between "turned" and "women's
refuge". Also acceptable, I think, would be to have three hyphens in
"convent-turned-women's-refuge".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Skitt
Yes, I don't see any way to clearly express the intended thought without the
adition of a few words. Playing with dashes and hyphens will not improve
anything for the reading public.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Gary G. Taylor
How about "convent-turned-women's-"refuge"?
--
Gary G. Taylor * Rialto, CA
gary at donavan dot org / http:// geetee dot donavan dot org
"The two most abundant things in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity." --Harlan Ellison
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> AWILLIS957 wrote:
>>> Saw this in the paper today:
>>>
>>> In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is stormed
>>> by townsmen.
>>>
>>> The meaning is perfectly clear, but is there not a slight miscue
>>> here, to the effect that this was once a convent refuge? On the
>>> other hand, if the hyphens are dropped, a different miscue arises,
>>> as you might think initially that "convent" is to be the subject and
>>> "turned" the main verb. Is the writer is trying to tell us too much
>>> in too few words?
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Yes, I don't see any way to clearly express the intended thought
>> without the
>> adition of a few words. Playing with dashes and hyphens will not
>> improve anything for the reading public.
>
> How about "convent-turned-women's-"refuge"?
Why the scare quotes? It is a refuge, isn't it? I don't think it improves
anything.
Mark Brader
> > In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is stormed by
> > townsmen.
Aaron Dinkin writes:
> ... if those are the words that the writer is intent on
> using, the correct way to punctuate it would be to use a hyphen between
> "convent" and "turned", and an en dash between "turned" and "women's
> refuge".
Ugh! That's even worse than the original -- it uses two different
punctuation marks where their force should be equal, but still doesn't
resolve the basic issue by showing that the scope of the construct
extends as far as "refuge".
> Also acceptable, I think, would be to have three hyphens in
> "convent-turned-women's-refuge".
This is the *only* acceptable choice (other than recasting the sentence,
of course). If you use a hyphenated construct like -turned- with an
expression of more than one word, you have to hyphenate the whole thing.
Or so I say. But these days there seem to be a lot of people who find
the original construction reasonable. (Shakes head)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Logic is logic. That's all I say."
m...@vex.net -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Michael Hamm
part:
> > > a convent-turned-women's refuge is stormed by townsmen.
> > "convent-turned-women's-refuge".
>
> This is the *only* acceptable choice (other than recasting the sentence,
> of course). If you use a hyphenated construct like -turned- with an
> expression of more than one word, you have to hyphenate the whole thing.
>
> Or so I say. But these days there seem to be a lot of people who find
> the original construction reasonable. (Shakes head)
Is that a "these days" thing? I thought it was old, too. In any event,
it's certainly common, and logical, but often leads to barely-readable
sentences, as above. The all-hyphens solution advocated by you (and used
by me in informal writing (in formal writing, and sometimes even in
informal writing, I try to recast the sentence)) is less logical, I think,
less common, I think, and against taught rules of grammar (and, hence,
presumably, conservative stylesheets), I think.
Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003,
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE.
msh...@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated,
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted.
Gary G. Taylor
Isn't the intended thought that the place is a communal living situation for
lesbians? Don't the square quotes more clearly imply that?
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Gary G. Taylor wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>> AWILLIS957 wrote:
>>>>> Saw this in the paper today:
>>>>>
>>>>> In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is
>>>>> stormed by townsmen.
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning is perfectly clear, but is there not a slight miscue
>>>>> here, to the effect that this was once a convent refuge? On the
>>>>> other hand, if the hyphens are dropped, a different miscue arises,
>>>>> as you might think initially that "convent" is to be the subject
>>>>> and "turned" the main verb. Is the writer is trying to tell us
>>>>> too much in too few words?
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I don't see any way to clearly express the intended thought
>>>> without the
>>>> adition of a few words. Playing with dashes and hyphens will not
>>>> improve anything for the reading public.
>>>
>>> How about "convent-turned-women's-"refuge"?
>>
>> Why the scare quotes? It is a refuge, isn't it? I don't think it
>> improves anything.
>
> Isn't the intended thought that the place is a communal living
> situation for lesbians?
Gosh, no! Not to me, anyway. Am I misunderstanding something?
> Don't the square quotes more clearly imply that?
"Scare", not "square", but no, I would never have thought of that. I was
thinking of battered women -- something more in the news than lesbians. Are
there any homes for lesbians other than their own?
Gosh, I know several of them, but none of them are in refuges.
R J Valentine
I can see I have my work cut out for me on hyperhyphenation (q.g.).
First of all, an en-dash is *never* used in hyperhyphenation -- it's only
used in things like date ranges, and it's simulated with a hyphen (or with
a slash when it's used in hyperendashation, as in George Washington
(1730/9-1790/9)).
Second of all, "convent turned women's refuge" doesn't need *any* hyphens
as a noun phrase. It's a convent that has turned (or has been turned)
into a women's refuge. If necessary to avoid confusion with surrounding
words, the "turned women's refuge" can be parenthesized. It's only when
using the whole thing as a compound modifier that hyphenation kicks in,
and that is where the hyperhyphenation comes to the rescue. The gift
shop, for instance, might sell convent-turned-women's=refuge T-shirts.
It's a shame these linguist schools don't teach this stuff. It's the
minimum I'd expect from a good high school.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
Skitt
> I can see I have my work cut out for me on hyperhyphenation (q.g.).
> First of all, an en-dash is *never* used in hyperhyphenation -- it's
> only used in things like date ranges, and it's simulated with a
> hyphen (or with a slash when it's used in hyperendashation, as in
> George Washington (1730/9-1790/9)).
How true, how true.
> Second of all, "convent turned women's refuge" doesn't need *any*
> hyphens as a noun phrase. It's a convent that has turned (or has
> been turned) into a women's refuge. If necessary to avoid confusion
> with surrounding words, the "turned women's refuge" can be
> parenthesized. It's only when using the whole thing as a compound
> modifier that hyphenation kicks in, and that is where the
> hyperhyphenation comes to the rescue. The gift shop, for instance,
> might sell convent-turned-women's=refuge T-shirts.
Uh, what's that equals sign doing there? Never mind -- that's crap. It'd
sell, though.
> It's a shame these linguist schools don't teach this stuff. It's the
> minimum I'd expect from a good high school.
I'd hope that the high schools would teach better sentence structure than
that, and that linguists would stay out of that sort of a mess.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> A. Willis quotes:
>
>> > In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is stormed by
>> > townsmen.
>
> Aaron Dinkin writes:
>> ... if those are the words that the writer is intent on
>> using, the correct way to punctuate it would be to use a hyphen between
>> "convent" and "turned", and an en dash between "turned" and "women's
>> refuge".
>
> Ugh! That's even worse than the original -- it uses two different
> punctuation marks where their force should be equal, but still doesn't
> resolve the basic issue by showing that the scope of the construct
> extends as far as "refuge".
I think it does: I recall being taught that one of the roles of an en dash
is to carry the force of a hyphen with the power to extend its scope over
white space. The web page <http://www.lookoutnow.com/dtp/alas-en.htm>
gives the example "a New York-based company" as one that would require an
en dash. The web page <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/> cites the
_Chicago Manual of Style_ as agreeing with me. (I'm sorry to be citing web
pages, but I don't believe I own a print book that contains a punctuation
guide.)
Skitt
> ... I recall being taught that one of the roles of an en
> dash is to carry the force of a hyphen with the power to extend its
> scope over white space. The web page
> <http://www.lookoutnow.com/dtp/alas-en.htm> gives the example "a New
> York-based company" as one that would require an en dash.
Why would it require any dashes on hyphens? "New York based company" does
not leave any room for misinterpretation whatsoever, innit?
> The web page <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/> cites
> the _Chicago Manual of Style_ as agreeing with me.
Whoopee!
> (I'm sorry to be citing web pages, but I don't believe I own a print
> book that contains a punctuation guide.)
I don't think that there are any that could be classified as being
authoritative anyway, lacking any definite punctuation rules for the English
language.
R J Valentine
...
} I think it does: I recall being taught that one of the roles of an en dash
} is to carry the force of a hyphen with the power to extend its scope over
} white space. The web page <http://www.lookoutnow.com/dtp/alas-en.htm>
} gives the example "a New York-based company" as one that would require an
} en dash. The web page <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/> cites the
} _Chicago Manual of Style_ as agreeing with me. (I'm sorry to be citing web
} pages, but I don't believe I own a print book that contains a punctuation
} guide.)
This is merely to confirm that they say it. My shiny new 15th edition of
_The Chicago Manual of Style_ says that in section 6.85 on page 262. I
reject it, but it says it. Counting on micrometer measurement of a
hyphen-like thing to determine the scope of one end of the hyphen -- but
not the other -- is silliness of the level of the weakly advocated
addition of periods and commas within quoted material.
Who you gonna believe, Chicago or me.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R J Valentine
} R J Valentine wrote:
}
}> I can see I have my work cut out for me on hyperhyphenation (q.g.).
}> First of all, an en-dash is *never* used in hyperhyphenation -- it's
}> only used in things like date ranges, and it's simulated with a
}> hyphen (or with a slash when it's used in hyperendashation, as in
}> George Washington (1730/9-1790/9)).
}
} How true, how true.
}
}> Second of all, "convent turned women's refuge" doesn't need *any*
}> hyphens as a noun phrase. It's a convent that has turned (or has
}> been turned) into a women's refuge. If necessary to avoid confusion
}> with surrounding words, the "turned women's refuge" can be
}> parenthesized. It's only when using the whole thing as a compound
}> modifier that hyphenation kicks in, and that is where the
}> hyperhyphenation comes to the rescue. The gift shop, for instance,
}> might sell convent-turned-women's=refuge T-shirts.
}
} Uh, what's that equals sign doing there?
That's not an equals sign; it's a hyperhyphen. Your computer should
display it the same length as a hyphen. If it is displaying the same
length as an en-dash, I don't wonder at your confusion. Hyperhyphens bind
more tightly than hyphens, which bind more tightly than spaces.
(Hypohyphens (on the other hand) look a lot like spaces, but are found in
capitalized, italicized, quoted, or otherwise set-off material that don't
need hyphens when serving as compound modifiers.) Didn't they teach this
stuff in school back in the old days? Google "hyperhyphenation" or
"hypohyphenation" for other discussion.
} Never mind -- that's crap. It'd
} sell, though.
I don't see why not: Chicago sells.
}> It's a shame these linguist schools don't teach this stuff. It's the
}> minimum I'd expect from a good high school.
}
} I'd hope that the high schools would teach better sentence structure than
} that, and that linguists would stay out of that sort of a mess.
You have some problem with the sentence structure? Out with it. This is
the place, and now is the time. Linguists are as welcome here as other
users of English, but are asked to check their Linguist usage at the door.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
> } R J Valentine wrote:
> }> I can see I have my work cut out for me on hyperhyphenation (q.g.).
> }> First of all, an en-dash is *never* used in hyperhyphenation --
> it's }> only used in things like date ranges, and it's simulated with
> a }> hyphen (or with a slash when it's used in hyperendashation, as in
> }> George Washington (1730/9-1790/9)).
> }
> } How true, how true.
> }
> }> Second of all, "convent turned women's refuge" doesn't need *any*
> }> hyphens as a noun phrase. It's a convent that has turned (or has
> }> been turned) into a women's refuge. If necessary to avoid
> confusion }> with surrounding words, the "turned women's refuge" can
> be }> parenthesized. It's only when using the whole thing as a
> compound }> modifier that hyphenation kicks in, and that is where the
> }> hyperhyphenation comes to the rescue. The gift shop, for instance,
> }> might sell convent-turned-women's=refuge T-shirts.
> }
> } Uh, what's that equals sign doing there?
>
> That's not an equals sign; it's a hyperhyphen. Your computer should
> display it the same length as a hyphen.
It displayed it as an equals sign. That's why I called it that. Why else?
> If it is displaying the same
> length as an en-dash, I don't wonder at your confusion. Hyperhyphens
> bind more tightly than hyphens, which bind more tightly than spaces.
> (Hypohyphens (on the other hand) look a lot like spaces, but are
> found in capitalized, italicized, quoted, or otherwise set-off
> material that don't need hyphens when serving as compound modifiers.)
> Didn't they teach this stuff in school back in the old days? Google
> "hyperhyphenation" or "hypohyphenation" for other discussion.
Well, it didn't, so I skipped that paragraph. Sorry.
>
> } Never mind -- that's
> crap. It'd } sell, though.
>
> I don't see why not: Chicago sells.
>
> }> It's a shame these linguist schools don't teach this stuff. It's
> the }> minimum I'd expect from a good high school.
> }
> } I'd hope that the high schools would teach better sentence
> structure than } that, and that linguists would stay out of that sort
> of a mess.
>
> You have some problem with the sentence structure? Out with it.
> This is the place, and now is the time. Linguists are as welcome
> here as other users of English, but are asked to check their Linguist
> usage at the door.
Oh, good grief! I'm not going to wade through your screwed-up stuff to
figure out what was going on before, but I will present a rewrite of the
original sentence that would not offend anyone, not even you, m'kay?
I have to dig deep for this, as it is not in what you quoted, so hang in
there for a skosh, arright?
<cue elevator music>
Here it is -- <drum roll, please>
First -- the original sentence:
In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is
stormed by townsmen.
Now -- the all new, vastly improved, fat-free and healthful revised offering
(may we have a BIG round of applause?)
Here it is --
are you ready?
"Paradise", a convent now turned into a women's refuge, is stormed by the
townsmen.
Call the police! Don't let them get away with the panties!
R J Valentine
...
} First -- the original sentence:
} In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is
} stormed by townsmen.
}
} Now -- the all new, vastly improved, fat-free and healthful revised offering
} (may we have a BIG round of applause?)
}
} Here it is --
}
} are you ready?
}
} "Paradise", a convent now turned into a women's refuge, is stormed by the
} townsmen.
}
} Call the police! Don't let them get away with the panties!
Is "Paradise" a book or the name of the former convent? The two sentences
certainly say different things. There is no need at all for hyphens in
the original version. Assuming that "Paradise" changes from being a book
to being a former convent, the revised version is certainly readable at a
lower grade level.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
J. W. Love
>Why would it require any dashes on hyphens? "New
>York based company" does not leave any room for
>misinterpretation whatsoever, innit?
What's a "based company"? a misreading of "biased company"?
In <New York-based company>, Chicago wants an en-dash after <York>, as Aaron
said.
ap
> Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>
> > ... I recall being taught that one of the roles of an en
> > dash is to carry the force of a hyphen with the power to extend its
> > scope over white space. The web page
> > <http://www.lookoutnow.com/dtp/alas-en.htm> gives the example "a New
> > York-based company" as one that would require an en dash.
>
> not leave any room for misinterpretation whatsoever, innit?
>
The convention I go by, which I read in a book somewhere, is that the
capitalisation of "New York" makes a first hyphen unnecessary. But
however that may be, "New York-based company" just looks awful to me.
And what happens if the sentence starts with those words ("New
York-based companies win more contracts")? It might appear that
companies recently established in York are winning more contracts, god
bless em.
*
What intrigues me about the original example "convent-turned-women's
refuge" is that there's nothing at all wrong with it said aloud -
rewording isn't needed; it is only when trying to set the blighter on
paper that the problems start.
Peasemarch.
J. W. Love
>The convention I go by, which I read in a book somewhere, is
>that the capitalisation of "New York" makes a first hyphen
>unnecessary. But however that may be, "New York-based
>company" just looks awful to me.
But that's different! That's a hyphen! To refer to a company based in New York,
you want an en-dash, so the phrase looks in print closer to how <New
York--based company> looks here.
<And what happens if the sentence starts with those words
>("New York-based companies win more contracts")? It might
>appear that companies recently established in York are
>winning more contracts, god bless em.
Yes, that's right: that's what it means, because that's a hyphen there, not an
en-dash. It may be best if---as some publishers suggest---we type two hyphens
for an en-dash and three for an em-dash.
Donna Richoux
> Peasemarch wrote:
>
> >The convention I go by, which I read in a book somewhere, is
> >that the capitalisation of "New York" makes a first hyphen
> >unnecessary. But however that may be, "New York-based
> >company" just looks awful to me.
>
> But that's different! That's a hyphen! To refer to a company based in New
> York, you want an en-dash, so the phrase looks in print closer to how <New
> York--based company> looks here.
That may be true in the font you use, but in the monospace font I use,
that is way too long to represent an en dash.
>
> <And what happens if the sentence starts with those words
> >("New York-based companies win more contracts")? It might
> >appear that companies recently established in York are
> >winning more contracts, god bless em.
>
> Yes, that's right: that's what it means, because that's a hyphen there, not an
> en-dash. It may be best if---as some publishers suggest---we type two hyphens
> for an en-dash and three for an em-dash.
I'm curious as to who would suggest this.
(For anyone trying to find out the basics, <hyphen en em dash> in Google
yields explanatory articles.)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
> ...
> } First -- the original sentence:
> } In [the book] "Paradise", a convent-turned-women's refuge is
> } stormed by townsmen.
> }
> } Now -- the all new, vastly improved, fat-free and healthful revised
> offering } (may we have a BIG round of applause?)
> }
> } Here it is --
> }
> } are you ready?
> }
> } "Paradise", a convent now turned into a women's refuge, is stormed
> by the } townsmen.
> }
> } Call the police! Don't let them get away with the panties!
>
> Is "Paradise" a book or the name of the former convent? The two
> sentences certainly say different things. There is no need at all
> for hyphens in
> the original version. Assuming that "Paradise" changes from being a
> book
> to being a former convent, the revised version is certainly readable
> at a lower grade level.
I screwed up, it seems. It's a book. Cancel the applause.
Reset.
J. W. Love
wrote:
>I'm curious as to who would suggest this.
In my experience, Garland, Routledge, Taylor & Francis; in Franke's, publishers
of certain medical journals (see his post).
Mark Brader
>>> ... the correct way to punctuate it would be to use a hyphen between
>>> refuge".
>> Ugh! That's even worse than the original -- it uses two different
>> punctuation marks where their force should be equal, but still doesn't
>> resolve the basic issue by showing that the scope of the construct
>> extends as far as "refuge".
> I think it does: I recall being taught that one of the roles of an en dash
> is to carry the force of a hyphen with the power to extend its scope over
> white space.
I will admit that as a possible construct (in monospaced text I'll
write it was a spaced hyphen, but you may imagine an en dash) where
the things on each side of the punctuation are have the same role,
as in "the New York - Los Angeles flight". I don't accept it as
valid when the hyphen is converting a word to an affix, as in the
example "a New York - based company" posted elsewhere; that still has
to be New-York-based as far as I'm concerned.
> The web page <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/> cites the
> _Chicago Manual of Style_ as agreeing with me.
Well, it wouldn't be the first thing in the Chicago Manual that I say
is wrong. See the signature quote.
--
Mark Brader | "I've just checked my dictionary, though, and it does
m...@vex.net | not agree with me, which just goes to show how wrong
Toronto | dictionaries can be." --Gary Williams