One word, two words, or hyphen?
Jan Andersson
work force
workforce
work-force
Which alternative is correct? Are there any rules for
this in English?
Regards,
Jan Andersson
Fernando Melendez
Jan Andersson wrote:
>work force
>
>workforce
>
>work-force
>
>
>Which alternative is correct? Are there any rules for
>this in English?
_____________________________________________
There are many rules for the use of hyphens in English (and
therefore, none). A "point of view" is that hyphens are ugly and best
avoided, but not at all costs. If clarity demands a hyphen it should
be placed. Such is not the case in the example above, therefore the
hyphen should be avoided.
Thus, American Heritage and Webster's both use "work force;" but New
Shorter Oxford likes "workforce."
Fernando
David Casseres
In article <33e1c91c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
fer...@worldnet.att.net (Fernando Melendez) wrote:
> Jan Andersson wrote:
>
> >work force
> >
> >workforce
> >
> >work-force
> >
> >
> >Which alternative is correct? Are there any rules for
> >this in English?
> _____________________________________________
>
> There are many rules for the use of hyphens in English (and
> therefore, none). A "point of view" is that hyphens are ugly and best
> avoided, but not at all costs. If clarity demands a hyphen it should
> be placed. Such is not the case in the example above, therefore the
> hyphen should be avoided.
However, if you don't use the single word "workforce," then the hyphen is
required (according to many) when the two words a re a compound
adjective. Thus
"The work force is growing"
but
"Here is the latest work-force analysis."
--
Cheers,
David
alan auerbach F
Terms like this tend to change from two words to hypenated to one.
What and when depends on the "house style." If that's not established,
it's the author's call. The more technical the piece and the more
frequently the term is used, the more you would lean to a single word.
At least, that's the convention in my work place -> work-place -> workplace.
--
Al.
Steve Lewin
In message <EE8LL...@info.uucp>
It might be helpful to quote a little of the message when replying. I
got to the last sentence still wondering how to write "This" as two
words or where the hyphen might go.
Steve
(the penny was a thick one)
Rob
Geoff Butler wrote:
>
>
> I have equipped myself with a threading newsreader. When I read a
> posting with no quoting at all, it is within the ability of me and my
> software to close the posting, display the thread tree, find the
> previous posting in the tree, display and read that posting, close it,
> go back to the thread tree, find the original posting again, read it,
> and infer what the poster is replying to.
>
> But I don't, because it's time-consuming and prone to error. So, rather
> than read a posting that I don't understand, I ignore it. After all, why
> should I put in the effort if the poster can't be bothered to?
>
Oh, dear.
You sound a little upset.
Why?
_rob_
Geoff Butler
No, I'm not upset, I'm disagreeing in as much detail as possible with
the person whose post you snipped, the one who said that I should buy a
threading newsreader in order to cope with people who refuse to cite any
of the comments that they are replying to.
And don't call me 'dear'.
-ler
Paul Clark
John Starr wrote:
[snip]
>
> It is the style of aaue...@mach1.wlu.ca (alan auerbach F) , established
> in this newsgroup probably before you began reading news, to post without
> benefit of any quoting. Quoting is not all that necessary anyway for
> users who have had the wit to equip themselves (rather, their computers)
> with a decent, threading-capable newsreader.
I have a thread-following newsreader, but I often receive replies before
the posts they refer to, and I have seen posts from other aue-ers saying
the same thing happens to them. In this case it is useful to have the
point that is being referred to in the reply.
--
Paul Clark
Marc Sacks
: >
: > >work force
: > >
: > >workforce
: > >
: > >work-force
: > >
: > >
: > >Which alternative is correct? Are there any rules for
: > >this in English?
: > _____________________________________________
The answer seems to lie in how long a phrase has been around. Typically an
expression begins as a phrase ("work force"), then over time gets hyphenated,
especially when used as an adjective ("work-force management"), and
eventually becomes a single word. There is always a period of flux when
more than one of these usages are acceptable. To this day, "database" and
"data base" (though not "data-base) are in common usage.
I remember reading a novel from the 1930s or 40s (maybe "Studs Lonigan" though
I'm not sure) in which a newly fashionable fruit was called a "grape-fruit."
Sic transit.
Marc Sacks
Truly Donovan
Marc Sacks wrote:
> The answer seems to lie in how long a phrase has been around. Typically an
> expression begins as a phrase ("work force"), then over time gets hyphenated,
> especially when used as an adjective ("work-force management"), and
> eventually becomes a single word. There is always a period of flux when
> more than one of these usages are acceptable. To this day, "database" and
> "data base" (though not "data-base) are in common usage.
>
> I remember reading a novel from the 1930s or 40s (maybe "Studs Lonigan" though
> I'm not sure) in which a newly fashionable fruit was called a "grape-fruit."
It is my observation that the process has become very much accelerated in the
last quarter century or so. If the term "data base" were being introduced
into industry parlance today instead of 30+ years ago, it would most likely have
gone straight to "database." I was interested to see a copy editor mark as
incorrect all of my references to "data base" (I chose to use it because I was
specifically not talking about any specific database technology, but I shrugged
and decided that was much too subtle a point to distress a copy editor with and
changed it as requested -- and also because this had been a particularly sane
copy editor who left unsullied all my split infinitives and didn't even raise an
eyebrow at "wysiwyggity" and you have to respect that).
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Rod
I also often receive replies first. I suggest that good practice is
to quote enough of the original posting to make the subject matter
clear, but to snip out irrelevancies and to precis lengthy originals.
Rod
John F. Emery
In article <33F877...@met.phy.umist.ac.uk>, Paul Clark
<p...@met.phy.umist.ac.uk> wrote:
> John Starr wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > It is the style of aaue...@mach1.wlu.ca (alan auerbach F) ,
established
> > in this newsgroup probably before you began reading news, to post
without
> > benefit of any quoting. Quoting is not all that necessary anyway for
> > users who have had the wit to equip themselves (rather, their computers)
> > with a decent, threading-capable newsreader.
>
> I have a thread-following newsreader, but I often receive replies before
> the posts they refer to, and I have seen posts from other aue-ers saying
> the same thing happens to them. In this case it is useful to have the
> point that is being referred to in the reply.
> --
The same thing occurs here. Our server is quite flakey. I often miss
threads altogether (as I know from checking DejaNews--which is much more
time consuming than going throught the server). More often I miss several
replies or the original post.