Why are hyphens disappearing?
al willis
Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will we
ever go back to the good old days? Al willis
--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are
cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt."
Bertrand Russell
Pierre Jelenc
al willis <awi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
> have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
> in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
> double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will we
> ever go back to the good old days?
Too late. They have been retooled into apostrophe's.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc Know what's weird? Day by day nothing seems to
rc...@panix.com change, but pretty soon everything is different.
pie...@nycbeer.org Calvin & Hobbes
http://www.columbia.edu/~pcj1/
Truly Donovan
al willis wrote:
>
> Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
> have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
> in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
> double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will we
This trend was manifest long before computers became popular.
I find the phrase "ever since the popularity of the computer" somewhat
strange -- as if it were a specific point in time, or at least a span of
time in the past. Am I the only one to find it so?
Truly Donovan
Daniel P. B. Smith
In article <323BA1...@lunemere.com>,
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>al willis wrote:
>>
>> Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
>> have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
>> in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
>> double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will we
>> ever go back to the good old days? Al willis
>
>This trend was manifest long before computers became popular.
In 1965 I wrote a short note for an internal newsletter at MIT,
in which I used the (coined?) word "stereo-image." The editor, a
very punctilious professional armed with Chicago style manuals and
whatnot, insisted on changing it to "stereoimage." I objected on
the grounds that if written that way it would be perceived as being
pronounced "stuhROYmudge," to no avail...
>I find the phrase "ever since the popularity of the computer" somewhat
>strange -- as if it were a specific point in time, or at least a span of
>time in the past. Am I the only one to find it so?
I assume you're referring to the phrasing which, if taken literally,
suggests that computers enjoyed a brief vogue but are no longer popular.
I didn't notice the problem when I read it, accepting it as ordinary,
sloppy, online, ASCII-encoded casual colloquial speech.
The rise of the personal computer, to the point where it could influence
popular culture and shape our spoken and written language, does, it seem
to me, have a fairly well-defined time period (say 1985-1990).
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
al willis
In <Dxrvq...@world.std.com> dpbs...@world.std.com (Daniel P. B.
Exactly. That's what I meant by the word "popular." Like one
computer in every two homes. Al Willis
Truly Donovan
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>
> The rise of the personal computer, to the point where it could influence
> popular culture and shape our spoken and written language, does, it seem
> to me, have a fairly well-defined time period (say 1985-1990).
I wouldn't agree with that at all. I don't think it is over by a long shot,
and if I am wrong and it is over, it couldn't have ended before the days of
general access to the WWW, which means it wasn't over in 1990. I think we've
just seen the tip of the iceberg, myself.
Truly Donovan
Bill Fisher
In article <323BA1...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
> al willis wrote:
> >
> > Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
> > have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
> > in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
> > double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will we
> > ever go back to the good old days? Al willis
>
> This trend was manifest long before computers became popular.
>
> strange -- as if it were a specific point in time, or at least a span of
> time in the past. Am I the only one to find it so?
>
Me too. It seems like in "ever since X", X should be a point in
time -- an event, accomplishment, or achievement. When a phrase
is used that looks like it refers to a span of time, it's taken as
the end point of that span. "... ever since Roger ran the mile in
4 minutes" refers to his accomplishment (or is it "achievement"?),
which occurred when he crossed the finish line, not when he started
or in the middle. So if "popularity" is forced into this mold, it
would have to mean the end of a period of popularity, as in "ever
since the popularity of the hula-hoop, ..." But his does sound
forced, since popularity is a state, not an event.
- billf
Mark Steven Long
Al Willis writes:
>Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
>have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
>in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
>double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will we
>ever go back to the good old days?
Probably not. The trend these days is to avoid hyphens AS LONG AS the word
or phrase can be understood without them. Hyphens are still needed in many
cases -- particularly in some compound adjectives and certain verbs (e.g.,
"re-create" vs. "recreate").
If it helps, _The Atlantic Monthly_ has kept the old-fashioned hyphen style
in the face of everything. It's the only magazine I know of that still
hyphenates compound adjectives beginning with "more" or "most."
Mark Steven Long
(This is a personal message.)
Rainer Thonnes
In article <Dxrvq...@world.std.com>,
dpbs...@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
> Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
> >al willis wrote:
> >>
> >> have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line.
> >
>
> in which I used the (coined?) word "stereo-image." The editor, a
> very punctilious professional armed with Chicago style manuals and
> whatnot, insisted on changing it to "stereoimage." I objected on
> the grounds that if written that way it would be perceived as being
> pronounced "stuhROYmudge," to no avail...
Could you not have compromised on "stereo image"?
> >I find the phrase "ever since the popularity of the computer" somewhat
> >strange -- as if it were a specific point in time, or at least a span of
> >time in the past. Am I the only one to find it so?
No, me too. It does sound strange, and I think it's simply because
popularity is a state or quality, not an event capable of being used
as a time indicator, no matter whether of a single moment or of a span.
Thus the phrase just sounds incomplete, and has me asking "ever since
it did what?".
> I didn't notice the problem when I read it, accepting it as ordinary,
> sloppy, online, ASCII-encoded casual colloquial speech.
Exactly, it's sloppy. It would have been better to write "Ever since
computers achieved popularity ...".
> The rise of the personal computer, to the point where it could influence
> popular culture and shape our spoken and written language, does, it seem
> to me, have a fairly well-defined time period (say 1985-1990).
Perhaps, then, al willis should have written "Ever since the rise of ...".
ee...@execpc.com
The "rule," as I know it, is that some words go through three stages to
become one word:
1. When new to the language, they are typically two words (check book).
2. When they gain acceptability, they become separated by a hyphen
(check-book).
2. When they become part of everyday speach/writing, they become one
word (checkbook).
I believe this information is in the Chicago Manual of Style, but I
don't have one with me to verify it. If anyone wants me to back up the
above-listed rule, I will happily dig high and low to find the source.
In this age of instant, worldwide communication, it's not a surprise
that words can go through the three steps above quite rapidly.
Hope this helps.
Eileen Foran
Keith C. Ivey
ee...@execpc.com wrote:
>The "rule," as I know it, is that some words go through three stages to
>become one word:
>1. When new to the language, they are typically two words (check book).
>2. When they gain acceptability, they become separated by a hyphen
>(check-book).
>2. When they become part of everyday speach/writing, they become one
>word (checkbook).
I've heard this explanation often. It may have been true once,
but I don't think compounding has worked that way for some time,
at least in the US. Very few compound nouns are written with
hyphens, unless there's something confusing or ambiguous about
the one-word form. They're either one word or two--no hyphens.
The word "data base", for example, went straight to "database".
The form "data-base" seems like a style of spelling that went
out in the late-eighteenth century.
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Lee Billings
In article <Dxrvq...@world.std.com>, Daniel P. B. Smith says...
>
>In article <323BA1...@lunemere.com>,
>Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> wrote:
>>al willis wrote:
>>>
>>> Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
>>> in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
>>> double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant? Will
we
>>
>>This trend was manifest long before computers became popular.
>
>In 1965 I wrote a short note for an internal newsletter at MIT,
>in which I used the (coined?) word "stereo-image." The editor, a
>very punctilious professional armed with Chicago style manuals and
>whatnot, insisted on changing it to "stereoimage." I objected on
>the grounds that if written that way it would be perceived as being
>pronounced "stuhROYmudge," to no avail...
>
I've found several words that my spell-checker flags because it thinks
they should be hyphenated and I don't. The only one I can think of at the
moment is "putdown", but I know there have been others.
Ross Howard
rc...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) wrote:
>al willis <awi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> Ever since the popularity of the computer, journalists and others
>> have eliminated many hyphens, not only at the end of a line. I mean
>> in words like login (log-in) or everincreasing or when there is a
>> double vowel: coexist (co-exist). Pantsuit. What's a pant?
Careful copy editors seem to apply the rule: "If a hyphenated compound
noun is still instantly recognizable without the hyphen, then kill
that hyphen." We therefore regularly come across "login", "ripoff",
"runup", etc., but are seldom expected to figure out "driveby" (with
that last syllable pronounced as in "derby"?) or "drivein" (as in
"varicose vein"?).
In _Mind the Stop_ -- which, almost 60 years on, is still arguably
the most throrough and coherent guide to punctuation, G.V. Carey
addressed this question with characteristic common sense/common-sense
commonsense. As an example, he pointed out that although "public
house" may be written "public-house", it's unlikely ever to continue
evolving into a hyphenless form -- because few people know what a
"chouse" is. (Hence the optionally fully compound "leaseholder" but
the hyphenated "permit-holder.")
Well, at least that's the theory. Unfortunately, it's still largely
ignored -- especially, it seems, in the US; wouldn't "courthouse",
"cathouse" and "flophouse" look a tad tidier with hyphens?
Ross Howard
Mark Odegard
[posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed]
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 17:18:46 -0600, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
wrote:
>Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>>
>> The rise of the personal computer, to the point where it could influence
>> popular culture and shape our spoken and written language, does, it seem
>> to me, have a fairly well-defined time period (say 1985-1990).
>I wouldn't agree with that at all. I don't think it is over by a long shot,
>and if I am wrong and it is over, it couldn't have ended before the days of
>general access to the WWW, which means it wasn't over in 1990. I think we've
>just seen the tip of the iceberg, myself.
I predict we will be talking about shutting down the US Postal Service
ca. 2001. Considering it's budget of something like $45 billion (US) a
year, it'll soon be cheaper to give everyone a cheapy computer with a
cheapy modem.
--
Mark Odegard ode...@ptel.net
The great orthographical contest has long subsisted between
etymology and pronunciation. It has been demanded, on one hand,
that men should write as they speak; but, as it has been shown
that this conformity never was attained in any language, and
that it is not more easy to persuade men to agree exactly in
speaking than in writing, it may be asked, with equal propriety,
why men do not rather speak as they write.
-- Samuel Johnson, "The Plan of an English Dictionary" (1747).