hyphenation revisited
Bob Cunningham
On 22 March 2003, under the present subject line, in
Message-ID: <i56p7vc3mqo211k5v...@4ax.com>,
I said in a discussion of common-sense hyphenation
I've long felt that it should be conventional to
hyphenate the modified term in a case like [...]: "I
lost the large computer-manual", but I haven't seen a
style guide that endorses that convention.
I've recently been happy to find that the _Oxford Style
Manual_ has the following to say about that very thing:
5.10.1 Compound Words
[...]
Until recently in British English, the noun phrases
themselves were routinely hyphenated to unify the
sense: _small scale-factory_, _white water-lily_.
Although such hyphenation is less common now, editors
should leave it where it has been imposed
consistently, as it can serve to avoid ambiguity.
J. J. Lodder
In practice this is often too difficult to implement,
for there is no algorithm available for doing the job.
In many cases some understanding of meaning is necessary,
and that is as yet beyond the reach
of even the most ambitious AI programs.
It requires human intervention.
Best,
Jan
Bob Cunningham
(Jitze Couperus) said:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:01:57 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >I've recently been happy to find that the _Oxford Style
> >Manual_ has the following to say about that very thing:
> > 5.10.1 Compound Words
> > [...]
> > Until recently in British English, the noun phrases
> > themselves were routinely hyphenated to unify the
> > sense: _small scale-factory_, _white water-lily_.
> > Although such hyphenation is less common now, editors
> > should leave it where it has been imposed
> > consistently, as it can serve to avoid ambiguity.
> But this is an excellent example (in my mind anyway) where
> such hyphenation has served to ambiguate it in the wrong
> direction.
That's because you're assuming that only one direction is to
be considered.
> The example is cited: _small scale-factory_
> This tells me that it is a small (scale factory) i.e. the factory
> is associated with scales, and it is a small example of such
> a factory. A small factory that makes scales.
That's exactly the reason for giving the example.
Given "small scale factory", at least two interpretations
are possible: a factory that is on a small scale, and a
factory that is not large and that makes scales.
Hyphenating "small scale" makes it clear that the latter
interpretation is *not* meant, but if we want to make it
clear that the second interpretation *is* meant, and if
hyphenation of "scale factory" isn't an option, rewording is
necessary.
> Whereas a _small-scale factory_ is a factory that is
> described as small-scale, or possibly one that manufactures
> small scales.
Yes, there are actually three possible interpretations of
"small scale factory". The convention that I've been happy
to find endorsement of makes only one of them unambiguous:
"small scale-factory". If one of the other two is to be
made unambiguous, rewording seems to be necessary.
> The algorithm being
Your use of the word "algorithm" suggests that you may be
thinking of some automatic processor that inserts hyphens
independently of human intervention. Another poster has
made it even clearer that that was what he thought I had in
mind. I did not. My remarks had to do only with the choice
of hyphenation by a human writer or editor. I have no
interest in automatic hyphenators.
> that the modifier is hyphenated with the thing it is
> modifying... In this case it is the scale that is small
> and not the factory.
That's not known. From the unhyphenated phrase "small scale
factory", there's no way to be certain which is small. My
point was that I had wished that it was conventionally
permissible to hyphenate "scale factory" when it was a small
factory that was meant, and I had thought style manuals
didn't cover that convention.
> The example _white water-lily_ is fine because it is
> the lily that is associated with water. This compound entity
> is then described as white. It is not a lily associated with
> white water.
It's fine only if you assume that the only proper
hyphenation is the one that applies to the interpretation
you prefer to make. The source from which I took the
examples chose "small scale factory" and "white water lily"
because in each case more than one interpretation is
possible.
To take a possibly more realistic example, and one that's
been discussed before in AUE, consider "large computer
manual". With the convention that I've wished for and have
now found approval for, it can be made plain that what is
meant is a large manual for a computer, "large
computer-manual", and not a manual for a large computer,
"large-computer manual".
Because of the widespread disregard of -- or ignorance of --
disambiguating hyphenation, it can't be assumed that the
absence of a hyphen in "large computer" makes it clear that
a large manual is meant.
I hope these postings don't trigger another useless spate of
"hypohyphenation" and "hyperhyphenation" tedium from a
certain poster.
> My zwei pfennigs.
Maybe if you had spent drei, you would have better
understood the intent of my posting.
Bob Cunningham
(J. J. Lodder) said:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 22 March 2003, under the present subject line, in
> > Message-ID: <i56p7vc3mqo211k5v...@4ax.com>,
> > I said in a discussion of common-sense hyphenation
> > I've long felt that it should be conventional to
> > hyphenate the modified term in a case like [...]: "I
> > lost the large computer-manual", but I haven't seen a
> > style guide that endorses that convention.
> > I've recently been happy to find that the _Oxford Style
> > Manual_ has the following to say about that very thing:
> > 5.10.1 Compound Words
> > [...]
> > Until recently in British English, the noun phrases
> > themselves were routinely hyphenated to unify the
> > sense: _small scale-factory_, _white water-lily_.
> > Although such hyphenation is less common now, editors
> > should leave it where it has been imposed
> > consistently, as it can serve to avoid ambiguity.
> In practice this is often too difficult to implement,
> for there is no algorithm available for doing the job.
I said nothing about implementing an algorithm, and I had in
mind only the use of hyphenation by a human writer or
editor.
sage
Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d87jmvs57avpi30hn...@4ax.com...
I'm with you on your intent.
Cheers, Sage
>
Jitze Couperus
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The algorithm being
>
>Your use of the word "algorithm" suggests that you may be
>thinking of some automatic processor that inserts hyphens
>independently of human intervention.
I was unaware that the term "algorithm" implied and was
restricted only to the context of silicon-based finite automata.
Given that I as a human am posessed of the ability
to apply semantic cognition to an utterance, I would
think that I too would then be permitted to subject it
to some deterministic process.
Alas and alack, such is apparently not the case.
I shall have to inform Al Khwarazmi of this sad state
of affairs.
Jitze
J. J. Lodder
Looking at newspaper hyphenation these seem to have gone extinct,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
One may suppose editors follow some algorithm as well
when deciding what the correct (or the best) hyphenation is.
(how else would their agreement in almost all cases be explained?)
The problem is only that the rules are too complicated
to implement on a computer. (at least for the forseeable future.)
And distinguishing between preferred hyphes
and other less desirable hyphens
makes it even more difficult.
Best,
Jan
Bob Cunningham
(Jitze Couperus) said:
[ . . . ]
> I shall have to inform Al Khwarazmi of this sad state
> of affairs.
Tell Al "hello" for me.
Michael West
"Jitze Couperus" <couperu...@znet.com> wrote in message
news:3f696904...@sd.znet.com...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:01:57 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I've recently been happy to find that the _Oxford Style
> >Manual_ has the following to say about that very thing:
> >
> > 5.10.1 Compound Words
> > [...]
> > Until recently in British English, the noun phrases
> > themselves were routinely hyphenated to unify the
> > sense: _small scale-factory_, _white water-lily_.
> > Although such hyphenation is less common now, editors
> > should leave it where it has been imposed
> > consistently, as it can serve to avoid ambiguity.
> >
>
> such hyphenation has served to ambiguate it in the wrong
> direction.
>
>
> This tells me that it is a small (scale factory) i.e. the factory
> is associated with scales, and it is a small example of such
> a factory. A small factory that makes scales.
That's indeed what it means. Why is the the "wrong direction"?
("Small scale factory", without any hyphen, would mean the same
thing to me unless there were other clues to the contrary.)
>
> Whereas a _small-scale factory_ is a factory that is
> described as small-scale, or possibly one that manufactures
> small scales.
Indeed.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
R J Valentine
Gerald Smyth
I don't think avoiding ambiguity on a case-by-case basis should be a
factor in deciding on hyphenation. Compound nouns either should or
should not be hyphenated (according to their stress-pattern),
irrespective of what precedes them, while compound modifiers should
always be hyphenated even if the hyphenless version is unambiguous.
I believe it helps to use these hyphenation-rules and that the
proposed system of dropping or adding hyphens according to the
writer's perception of ambiguity is complex and unhelpful. Writer and
reader may have different ideas about what is or is not ambiguous, and
what is ambiguous may change with time.
I would not necessarily take the _Oxford Style Manual_'s endorsement
of 'small scale-factory' or 'white water-lily' to apply to 'large
computer manual', because the stress-patterns are different. If I
write 'white water-lily' I will write 'water-lily' everywhere. In any
case, 'large computer manual' is not ambiguous because English clumps
to the right (as Mr Valentine put it) by default.
I would write:
data-only network
small scale-factory, also scale-factory
white water-lily, also water-lily
large computer manual
Gerald Smyth
Bob Cunningham
(Gerald Smyth) said:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<neiimvs2smfhvjmo1...@4ax.com>...
> > On 22 March 2003, under the present subject line, in
> > Message-ID: <i56p7vc3mqo211k5v...@4ax.com>,
> > I said in a discussion of common-sense hyphenation
> > I've long felt that it should be conventional to
> > hyphenate the modified term in a case like [...]: "I
> > lost the large computer-manual", but I haven't seen a
> > style guide that endorses that convention.
> > I've recently been happy to find that the _Oxford Style
> > Manual_ has the following to say about that very thing:
> > 5.10.1 Compound Words
> > [...]
> > Until recently in British English, the noun phrases
> > themselves were routinely hyphenated to unify the
> > sense: _small scale-factory_, _white water-lily_.
> > Although such hyphenation is less common now, editors
> > should leave it where it has been imposed
> > consistently, as it can serve to avoid ambiguity.
> I don't think avoiding ambiguity on a case-by-case basis should be a
> factor in deciding on hyphenation. Compound nouns either should or
> should not be hyphenated (according to their stress-pattern),
> irrespective of what precedes them, while compound modifiers should
> always be hyphenated even if the hyphenless version is unambiguous.
What sense does it make to talk about "stress pattern" with
reference to written text?
> I believe it helps to use these hyphenation-rules and that the
> proposed system of dropping or adding hyphens according to the
> writer's perception of ambiguity is complex and unhelpful. Writer and
> reader may have different ideas about what is or is not ambiguous, and
> what is ambiguous may change with time.
By hyphenating to avoid ambiguity, the writer makes known
his or her intent to the reader. Whether or not the reader
would have considered the hyphenless version ambiguous is
not important once the writer's intent is clearly expressed.
> I would not necessarily take the _Oxford Style Manual_'s endorsement
> of 'small scale-factory' or 'white water-lily' to apply to 'large
> computer manual', because the stress-patterns are different.
Again, I find your mention of "stress patterns" completely
inappropriate when we're discussing written material.
> If I write 'white water-lily' I will write 'water-lily'
> everywhere.
I rely on precedent for guidance. I will not write
*"water-lily" everywhere until I find that spelling
supported by major dictionaries. Both _The New Shorter
Oxford_ and _Webster's Third New International_ have "water
lily" spelled open. They do show some words normally
hyphenated: "well-known" is one example.
> In any case, 'large computer manual' is not ambiguous
> because English clumps to the right (as Mr Valentine put
> it) by default.
The huge, obvious flaw in "clumps to the right" is that
there's no reason to expect that a reader will know that
English "clumps to the right". I had never heard of the
concept until Valentine brought it up. I don't see how
there can be any merit to it when "clumping" depends so
heavily upon stress and intonation, which are normally not
conveyed in written material.
I don't know where Valentine gets the stuff he writes. Can
anyone cite an authoritative source for the "clumps to the
right" concept as it relates to English grammar?
R J Valentine
...
} I don't know where Valentine gets the stuff he writes. Can
} anyone cite an authoritative source for the "clumps to the
} right" concept as it relates to English grammar?
More authoritative than me? *That* I'd like to see.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:authoritative-i...@wicked.smart.net>
Gerald Smyth
It makes sense to me. The stress-patterns in written text manifest
themselves when the text is read aloud, and can be heard in the mind's
ear. As I see it, one function of hyphenation is to follow and
indicate those stress-patterns.
> > I believe it helps to use these hyphenation-rules and that the
> > proposed system of dropping or adding hyphens according to the
> > writer's perception of ambiguity is complex and unhelpful. Writer and
> > reader may have different ideas about what is or is not ambiguous, and
> > what is ambiguous may change with time.
>
> By hyphenating to avoid ambiguity, the writer makes known
> his or her intent to the reader. Whether or not the reader
> would have considered the hyphenless version ambiguous is
> not important once the writer's intent is clearly expressed.
The writer can only make such intent known to the reader if the reader
is aware of the proposed system. He must know that lack of ambiguity
as perceived by the writer is the reason for the lack of an expected
hyphen (data only network) and that the presence of ambiguity as
perceived by the writer is the reason for the presence of an
unexpected hyphen (large computer-manual).
> > I would not necessarily take the _Oxford Style Manual_'s endorsement
> > of 'small scale-factory' or 'white water-lily' to apply to 'large
> > computer manual', because the stress-patterns are different.
>
> Again, I find your mention of "stress patterns" completely
> inappropriate when we're discussing written material.
It seems to me that the stress-patterns of compound words in speech
are generally reflected by hyphenation in written material. It's true
that hyphenation-styles have varied over time and vary among
author(itie)s, but the trend is there.
> > If I write 'white water-lily' I will write 'water-lily'
> > everywhere.
>
> I rely on precedent for guidance. I will not write
> *"water-lily" everywhere until I find that spelling
> supported by major dictionaries. Both _The New Shorter
> Oxford_ and _Webster's Third New International_ have "water
> lily" spelled open. They do show some words normally
> hyphenated: "well-known" is one example.
I prefer to try to spot a trend and then apply it universally
irrespective of the support of particular dictionaries for particular
cases. I suspect there is enough variation in usage to allow me to do
that. (For example, I find 'water-lily' in _An Irish Flora_ by D. A.
Webb, the first botany-book I looked into.)
> > In any case, 'large computer manual' is not ambiguous
> > because English clumps to the right (as Mr Valentine put
> > it) by default.
>
> The huge, obvious flaw in "clumps to the right" is that
> there's no reason to expect that a reader will know that
> English "clumps to the right". I had never heard of the
> concept until Valentine brought it up. I don't see how
> there can be any merit to it when "clumping" depends so
> heavily upon stress and intonation, which are normally not
> conveyed in written material.
In the phrase 'the light blue ball', 'light' modifies 'blue ball' and
not just 'ball'. That's all I understand by clumping to the right. If
we want no clumping we add a comma (light, blue ball) and if we want
clumping to the left we add a hyphen (light-blue ball).
> I don't know where Valentine gets the stuff he writes. Can
> anyone cite an authoritative source for the "clumps to the
> right" concept as it relates to English grammar?
Not at present.
Gerald Smyth
richard.chambers7
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote
> I said in a discussion of common-sense hyphenation
>
> I've long felt that it should be conventional to
> hyphenate the modified term in a case like [...]: "I
> lost the large computer-manual", but I haven't seen a
> style guide that endorses that convention.
>
> I've recently been happy to find that the _Oxford Style
> Manual_ has the following to say about that very thing:
>
> 5.10.1 Compound Words
> [...]
> Until recently in British English, the noun phrases
> themselves were routinely hyphenated to unify the
> sense: _small scale-factory_, _white water-lily_.
> Although such hyphenation is less common now, editors
> should leave it where it has been imposed
> consistently, as it can serve to avoid ambiguity.
>
On the M62 motorway between Leeds and Manchester, there is a sign which
proclaims:-
Abnormal Load Holding Area.
I passed a few minutes of mental exercise hyphenating this one, while on my
way back from Manchester. Should it be:-
Abnormal-load holding area
Abnormal load holding-area
Abnormal-load holding-area
Abnormal load-holding area
or was it alright as it was, without any hyphens?
Answers on a postcard to anybody-but-me.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Bob Cunningham
<richard....@ntlworld.com> said:
[ . . . ]
> On the M62 motorway between Leeds and Manchester, there is a sign which
> proclaims:-
> Abnormal Load Holding Area.
> I passed a few minutes of mental exercise hyphenating this one, while on my
> way back from Manchester. Should it be:-
> Abnormal-load holding area
> Abnormal load holding-area
> Abnormal-load holding-area
> Abnormal load-holding area
You left out
Abnormal-load-holding area
Abnormal load-holding-area
Without listening to a spoken stress and intonation pattern,
it's not possible to know for sure what meaning is intended,
but I would say that "abnormal-load-holding area" is most
likely to be the intended meaning.
To those who say that the writer has a stress pattern in
mind as he or she mentally vocalizes what he or she is
writing, and that the reader does a similar thing: What in
heaven's name makes you think the reader and the writer will
mentally vocalize the same stress pattern?
> or was it alright as it was, without any hyphens?
I think the sign probably gets the intended message to most
readers.
After all, modifiers clump to the left in English.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> To those who say that the writer has a stress pattern in
> mind as he or she mentally vocalizes what he or she is
> writing, and that the reader does a similar thing: What in
> heaven's name makes you think the reader and the writer will
> mentally vocalize the same stress pattern?
I don't remember who it was who said that, but the impression I got was
that there was no guarantee that there was, and that using hyphens was
supposed to help convey that.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
R J Valentine
...
} It makes sense to me. The stress-patterns in written text manifest
} themselves when the text is read aloud, and can be heard in the mind's
} ear. As I see it, one function of hyphenation is to follow and
} indicate those stress-patterns.
Lemme jump for a second over onto what might be Bob Cunningham's side (and
hope that, if it is, he doesn't jump sides just because I did). I don't
buy the idea of reflecting stress patterns with punctuation with no
connection to the structure of what is being expressed. The only thing
that facilitates is having talking heads mouth words as if they had
meaning to them. Better to make the meaning obvious -- possibly at the
risk of a few unpopular pauses that don't happen to destroy any meaning --
than to allow people to reproduce a bogus rhythm and miss the whole point.
An example in in the parenthetical remark in the first sentence of the
previous paragraph. Some people (I think I could name a few, high-school
graduates all) would leave out the comma after the "that", simply because
it can be said without a pause there. But that would be wrong, wrong,
wrongity wrong: the "that" goes with the "he" clause, not with the "if"
clause. You also see that a lot with but's that should be preceded with a
semicolon and followed by a comma, but end up preceded with a comma and
followed by a space. It's the Pause School of Commafication (PSOC) at
work there, and it's wrong. Teachers like John Lawler should be stamping
it out instead of encouraging it. If parentheses work but commas are
better, use commas but use both of them (unless one is absorbed by
adjacent stronger punctuation).
You're right about the hyphens, though. But voice contours are just a
hint, not a way of life worth preserving.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Gerald Smyth
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:26:54 +0100, "richard.chambers7"
> <richard....@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > On the M62 motorway between Leeds and Manchester, there is a sign which
> > proclaims:-
>
> > Abnormal Load Holding Area.
>
> > I passed a few minutes of mental exercise hyphenating this one, while on my
> > way back from Manchester. Should it be:-
>
> > Abnormal-load holding area
> > Abnormal load holding-area
> > Abnormal-load holding-area
> > Abnormal load-holding area
>
> You left out
>
> Abnormal-load-holding area
> Abnormal load-holding-area
>
> Without listening to a spoken stress and intonation pattern,
> it's not possible to know for sure what meaning is intended,
> but I would say that "abnormal-load-holding area" is most
> likely to be the intended meaning.
I venture to suggest that, had it been written 'abnormal-load
holding-area', listening to a spoken stress- and intonation-pattern
may not have been necessary.
> To those who say that the writer has a stress pattern in
> mind as he or she mentally vocalizes what he or she is
> writing, and that the reader does a similar thing: What in
> heaven's name makes you think the reader and the writer will
> mentally vocalize the same stress pattern?
They respond that hyphenation could serve as a guide, but that they
don't know that it could be extended beyond the simple cases discussed
yesterday. (They rather like the idea of a second level of hyphenation
as espoused by Mr Valentine but doubt that it would ever be reflected
in speech.)
When they pronounce 's-e-c-o-n-d-h-a-n-d-b-o-o-k-s-h-o-p', they give
it the same stress that would apply to 'a used premises for the sale
of books'. They don't believe there's a satisfactory way to represent
the generally accepted clumping of these words by either
stress-patterns or hyphenation.
> > or was it alright as it was, without any hyphens?
>
> I think the sign probably gets the intended message to most
> readers.
>
> After all, modifiers clump to the left in English.
In the unadorned phrase 'light blue ball', 'blue' clumps with 'ball'.
Following a hyphen, it clumps with 'light'. I call that clumping to
the right by default.
Gerald Smyth
Gerald Smyth
> On 20 Sep 2003 01:00:02 -0700 Gerald Smyth <gerald...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> } It makes sense to me. The stress-patterns in written text manifest
> } themselves when the text is read aloud, and can be heard in the mind's
> } ear. As I see it, one function of hyphenation is to follow and
> } indicate those stress-patterns.
> ...
>
> Lemme jump for a second over onto what might be Bob Cunningham's side (and
> hope that, if it is, he doesn't jump sides just because I did). I don't
> buy the idea of reflecting stress patterns with punctuation with no
> connection to the structure of what is being expressed.
I believe that stress-patterns do reflect the structure of what is
being expressed, and that in writing hyphenation can provide a visual
guide to that structure.
[comments on comma usage - with which I agree - snipped]
Gerald Smyth
richard.chambers7
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > [......]
> > Abnormal Load Holding Area.
>
> > I passed a few minutes of mental exercise hyphenating this one, while on
my
> > way back from Manchester. Should it be:-
>
> > Abnormal-load holding area
> > Abnormal load holding-area
> > Abnormal-load holding-area
> > Abnormal load-holding area
>
> You left out
>
> Abnormal-load-holding area
> Abnormal load-holding-area
>
> Without listening to a spoken stress and intonation pattern,
> it's not possible to know for sure what meaning is intended,
> but I would say that "abnormal-load-holding area" is most
> likely to be the intended meaning.
To most people driving on the motorway, the meaning of the notice would be
absolutely clear. It was a sign directing users to a *holding area* which
was designed to accommodate *abnormal loads* (e.g. very large loads on
lorries).
Furthermore, I disagree with you when you imply that the hyphen is used
mainly to indicate stress and intonation patterns. In my opinion, a hyphen
indicates a logical association. For this reason, my happy musings while
driving on the M62 led me to the conclusion that if I were to hyphenate it
at all (which is still debatable), I would choose "Abnormal-load holding
area", with just one hyphen as shown. The logical association is that it is
a [holding area] to accommodate any [abnormal load]. Hence "abnormal-load"
is a logical unit which is used as an adjectival qualifier to the main noun
"holding area".
My preference, which I cannot justify well, but which my opponents find
equally difficult to attack well, is to use hyphens to logically link
multiple adjectival qualifiers, such as "abnormal-load" in the above
example. Can you provide a water-tight (or watertight) rational argument to
either support this preference, or to refute it?
In a previous posting, the Oxford Style Guide was quoted, with the
hyphenated version of:-
small scale-factory
To me, the logical association indicated by the hyphen indicates that the
writer is describing a small factory that makes scales (e.g. weighing
scales). The alternative (not listed in the posting quoted) is:-
small-scale factory
The logical association here indicates either a factory that makes small
scales, or a smallish factory engaged in production on a small scale. It
could even mean a factory that specialises in the manufacture of miniature
goods. The ambiguity here is not the fault of the hyphenation. It is caused
by the fact that "scale" has several dictionary meanings. You cannot relieve
the ambiguity, logically, by leaving the hyphen out altogether, as in "small
scale factory".
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Bob Cunningham
(Gerald Smyth) said:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<72tpmvs7q8v3oaocs...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:26:54 +0100, "richard.chambers7"
> > <richard....@ntlworld.com> said:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > > On the M62 motorway between Leeds and Manchester, there is a sign which
> > > proclaims:-
> >
> > > Abnormal Load Holding Area.
> >
> > > I passed a few minutes of mental exercise hyphenating this one, while on my
> > > way back from Manchester. Should it be:-
> >
> > > Abnormal-load holding area
> > > Abnormal load holding-area
> > > Abnormal-load holding-area
> > > Abnormal load-holding area
> >
> > You left out
> >
> > Abnormal-load-holding area
> > Abnormal load-holding-area
> >
> > Without listening to a spoken stress and intonation pattern,
> > it's not possible to know for sure what meaning is intended,
> > but I would say that "abnormal-load-holding area" is most
> > likely to be the intended meaning.
>
> I venture to suggest that, had it been written 'abnormal-load
> holding-area', listening to a spoken stress- and intonation-pattern
> may not have been necessary.
I venture to make what should be an obvious suggestion, that
in a discussion of written text, any mention of stress and
intonation is patently absurd, except for what is indicated
by hyphenation, underlining, spacing of letters within a
word, or uppercase letters.
Why do you insist that "listening" can have any relevance in
a discussion of written text?
Gerald Smyth
Hearing in one's mind's ear (rather than actual listening) has
relevance at least to the extent of the exceptions mentioned - to
which I might add quotation-marks as used above - and it is one of
those exceptions that is under discussion. I have ventured to suggest
that hyphenation can provide a visual guide to the stress-patterns of
compound nouns, and that those stress-patterns themselves reflect the
structure of what is being expressed.
I assume that deaf people read with perfect comprehension without
being aware of stress-patterns (hyphenation directly reflects
structure). But this hearing person cannot ignore them. He sees an
intimate relationship between hyphenation and stress-pattern and
experiences a kind of audiovisual dissonance when one does not follow
the other.
Gerald Smyth
Adrian Bailey
> ...
> } It makes sense to me. The stress-patterns in written text manifest
> } themselves when the text is read aloud, and can be heard in the mind's
> } ear. As I see it, one function of hyphenation is to follow and
> } indicate those stress-patterns.
> ...
>
> Lemme jump for a second over onto what might be Bob Cunningham's side (and
> hope that, if it is, he doesn't jump sides just because I did). I don't
> buy the idea of reflecting stress patterns with punctuation with no
> connection to the structure of what is being expressed. The only thing
> that facilitates is having talking heads mouth words as if they had
> meaning to them. Better to make the meaning obvious -- possibly at the
> risk of a few unpopular pauses that don't happen to destroy any meaning --
> than to allow people to reproduce a bogus rhythm and miss the whole point.
I agree to some extent. I'm a punctuation minimalist (motto: English is not
German) but even I can see that sometimes a sentence will need a little
extra punctuation to help the reader work out quickly which words hang
together.
> An example in in the parenthetical remark in the first sentence of the
> previous paragraph. Some people (I think I could name a few, high-school
> graduates all) would leave out the comma after the "that", simply because
> it can be said without a pause there. But that would be wrong, wrong,
> wrongity wrong: the "that" goes with the "he" clause, not with the "if"
> clause.
I would use two commas, particularly as I can see that "if it is" is
parenthetical. I am willing, though, to accept the one comma solution you
decry. It looks fine, and, as you point out, it reflects the way we speak.
Can we have an example of the "but" problem you refer to?
Adrian
R J Valentine
...
} Can we have an example of the "but" problem you refer to?
I could give you one, but if I did, it would annoy Dr. Aman.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:exampl...@wicked.smart.net>
Adrian Bailey
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:26:16 +0100 Adrian Bailey <da...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
> } Can we have an example of the "but" problem you refer to?
>
> I could give you one, but if I did, it would annoy Dr. Aman.
Okay, so this is a similar situation. Again, I think it looks okay, but
agree that the parenthetical "if i did" might be better comma'd off. I don't
agree though that there should be a semi-colon after "one"; a semi-colon (in
this context) is a not-so-full stop and what follows it should** be able to
stand alone as a sentence. I'm not anti sentences beginning with "but" per
se, but I think it's against the spirit of semi-colons to use them before
conjunctions.
**Some people might prefer me to add "in my opinion" but** this goes without
saying.
Adrian
R J Valentine
The trick is to do it only when there are subordinate commas in the
independent clause; otherwise, they may not be necessary. The "however"
rule is the star of that family of rules.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
PJ Dillberry
[...]
> Hearing in one's mind's ear (rather than actual listening) has
> relevance at least to the extent of the exceptions mentioned - to
> which I might add quotation-marks as used above - and it is one of
> those exceptions that is under discussion. I have ventured to suggest
> that hyphenation can provide a visual guide to the stress-patterns of
> compound nouns, and that those stress-patterns themselves reflect the
> structure of what is being expressed.
Hyphens could only provide a visual guide to stress patterns if people
were aware that that is the convention. Have you actually observed
that hyphens generally follow stress patterns? After all, you yourself
have argued that hyphen usage varies enough to allow you to decide on
the hyphenation status of a particular compound noun to suit yourself.
In any case, your system is inadequate. If I understand you aright,
you would write 'tale-teller' on the grounds that 'tale' is stressed.
How would you hyphenate 'tall tale teller' in the sense of a teller of
tall tales? How else but 'tall-tale teller'? Where then is the
stress-indicating hyphen?
> I assume that deaf people read with perfect comprehension without
> being aware of stress-patterns (hyphenation directly reflects
> structure). But this hearing person cannot ignore them. He sees an
> intimate relationship between hyphenation and stress-pattern and
> experiences a kind of audiovisual dissonance when one does not follow
> the other.
I doubt that your experience of audiovisual dissonance - whatever that
is - will do anything for Mr Cunningham.
I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
Good luck.
Pat Dillberry
Gerald Smyth
> [...]
> Hyphens could only provide a visual guide to stress patterns if people
> were aware that that is the convention. Have you actually observed
> that hyphens generally follow stress patterns? After all, you yourself
> have argued that hyphen usage varies enough to allow you to decide on
> the hyphenation status of a particular compound noun to suit yourself.
Having been a hyphen-spotter since my thesis-writing days - always
trying not to take them too seriously, of course - I've developed
something of a Hyphenusageincompositewordsgefühl [thank you]. The main
pattern that seems to emerge is the hyphenation of combinations where
the stress is placed on the first element. In speech, the stress
indicates that the combination has effectively become one word. In
writing, this fact is visually indicated by hyphenation or by writing
the combination as one word (china box, china-box; black bird,
blackbird). How rigorously to apply this trend may be problematical,
but if usage varies in particular cases I will feel free to choose the
style that agrees with the trend.
I disagree with Mr Cunningham's advocacy of the use of hyphens solely
to avoid ambiguity in particular cases (large computer-manual - there
is no ambiguity in the hyphenless version because English clumps to
the right by default) - and of the omission of hyphens on the grounds
that they are not necessary (data only network) when in fact they are
required to produce clumping to the left.
> In any case, your system is inadequate. If I understand you aright,
> you would write 'tale-teller' on the grounds that 'tale' is stressed.
> How would you hyphenate 'tall tale teller' in the sense of a teller of
> tall tales? How else but 'tall-tale teller'? Where then is the
> stress-indicating hyphen?
A second level of hyphenation, for example as espoused by Mr Valentine
under the rubric of hyperhyphenation, could be used to indicate a
second degree of association between words. Your example would then be
rendered 'tall=tale-teller' to indicate that 'tall' and 'tale' are
more closely associated with each other than either is with 'teller'.
In the absence of a way of indicating a second degree of association,
however, the looser-binding hyphen is regrettably lost. The system is
imperfect.
[snip]
> I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
> is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
> criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
> of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
> that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
> hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
> mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
> Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
It just so happens that I have on my shelves _Moby-Dick_, the short
stories of Dickens, _Alice in Wonderland_, _Through the
Looking-Glass_, _Lord Jim_, _Lolita_, _Ulysses_, _The Complete Saki_,
and assorted Greene and Carver. I will survey their hyphenation-styles
as you suggest.
Gerald Smyth
Donna Richoux
> pjdil...@yahoo.com (PJ Dillberry) wrote
> > I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
> > is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
> > criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
> > of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
> > that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
> > hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
> > mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
> > Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
>
> It just so happens that I have on my shelves _Moby-Dick_, the short
> stories of Dickens, _Alice in Wonderland_, _Through the
> Looking-Glass_, _Lord Jim_, _Lolita_, _Ulysses_, _The Complete Saki_,
> and assorted Greene and Carver. I will survey their hyphenation-styles
> as you suggest.
However, we've seen before that later editors as well as the authors'
contemporary editors imposed their own notions of punctuation -- so
don't leap to too many conclusions about the preferences of "the great
and the good."
I know we've discussed here whether the hyphen in "Moby-Dick" was
Melville's own or one of his publishers'. I don't remember if we reached
a definite answer.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
PJ Dillberry
[...]
> Having been a hyphen-spotter since my thesis-writing days - always
> trying not to take them too seriously, of course
The hyphens, I presume. You look to be taking them pretty seriously
now.
> - I think I've developed
> something of a Hyphenusageincompositewordsgefühl [thank you]
You're welcome.
> . The main
> pattern that seems to emerge is the hyphenation of combinations where
> the stress is placed on the first element.
The pattern was noted by H.W. & F.G. Fowler in _The King's English_ in
1906, and is further commented on in H.W. Fowler's _Modern English
Usage_ (2nd edn, revised by Ernest Gowers).
> In speech, the stress
> indicates that the combination has effectively become one word.
All it really indicates is that the words in the combination have a
closer association than would be indicated by an evenly stressed
reading, including, of course, cases where the combination has
effectively become one word.
> In
> writing, this fact is visually indicated by hyphenation or by writing
> the combination as one word (china box, china-box
a box made of china and a box for china, resp.
> ; black bird,
> blackbird). How rigorously to apply this trend may be problematical,
> but if usage varies in particular cases I will feel free to choose the
> style that agrees with the trend.
>
> I disagree with Mr Cunningham's advocacy of the use of hyphens solely
> to avoid ambiguity in particular cases (large computer-manual - there
> is no ambiguity in the hyphenless version because English clumps to
> the right by default
Do you mean that in multiple-word phrases each word qualifies the
whole clump of words to its right by default? Here's an exception: an
adverb only qualifies the word next to it.
> ) - and of the omission of hyphens on the grounds
> that they are not necessary (data only network) when in fact they are
> required to produce clumping to the left.
In _KE_ the Fowlers give the avoidance of possible ambiguity as the
reason that adjectival phrases are hyphenated. And again in _MEU_,
H.G. Fowler, with the agreement of Gowers, allows his conclusions to
flow from Churchill's dictum that hyphens should be avoided wherever
possible and suggests that hyphens in general may be omitted when no
ambiguity would result. Furthermore, in the phrase 'others may think
this over-nice', for example, he recommends the insertion of a hyphen
that might not otherwise be needed, to prevent the false scent that
could be occasioned by 'think this over'. The Fowlers would therefore
appear to provide some support for Mr Cunningham's views on the use of
hyphens.
> > In any case, your system is inadequate. If I understand you aright,
> > you would write 'tale-teller' on the grounds that 'tale' is stressed.
> > How would you hyphenate 'tall tale teller' in the sense of a teller of
> > tall tales? How else but 'tall-tale teller'? Where then is the
> > stress-indicating hyphen?
>
> A second level of hyphenation, for example as espoused by Mr Valentine
> under the rubric of hyperhyphenation, could be used to indicate a
> second degree of association between words. Your example would then be
> rendered 'tall=tale-teller' to indicate that 'tall' and 'tale' are
> more closely associated with each other than either is with 'teller'.
> In the absence of a way of indicating a second degree of association,
> however, the looser-binding hyphen is regrettably lost. The system is
> imperfect.
Accepted. I presume you'll not be espousing a second level of stress
intonation.
> > I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
> > is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
> > criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
> > of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
> > that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
> > hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
> > mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
> > Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
>
> It just so happens that I have on my shelves _Moby-Dick_, the short
> stories of Dickens, _Alice in Wonderland_, _Through the
> Looking-Glass_, _Lord Jim_, _Lolita_, _Ulysses_, _The Complete Saki_,
> and assorted Greene and Carver. I will survey their hyphenation-styles
> as you suggest.
And don't forget to take account of the possibility of the alteration
of their personal hyphenation practices by contemporary and later
editors, as suggested by Ms Richoux.
Pat Dillberry
Gerald Smyth
>
> [...]
>
> > Having been a hyphen-spotter since my thesis-writing days - always
> > trying not to take them too seriously, of course
>
> The hyphens, I presume. You look to be taking them pretty seriously
> now.
I tried to let the seriousness encroach only slowly, over a period of
twenty-odd years, at a rate consistent with the maintenance of sanity.
[snip]
> > . The main
> > pattern that seems to emerge is the hyphenation of combinations where
> > the stress is placed on the first element.
>
> The pattern was noted by H.W. & F.G. Fowler in _The King's English_ in
> 1906, and is further commented on in H.W. Fowler's _Modern English
> Usage_ (2nd edn, revised by Ernest Gowers).
They were my starting-point.
> > In speech, the stress
> > indicates that the combination has effectively become one word.
>
> All it really indicates is that the words in the combination have a
> closer association than would be indicated by an evenly stressed
> reading, including, of course, cases where the combination has
> effectively become one word.
Yes, that is a better statement of the position.
> > In
> > writing, this fact is visually indicated by hyphenation or by writing
> > the combination as one word (china box, china-box
>
> a box made of china and a box for china, resp.
Right (china box and CHINA-box). Stress indicates meaning, and
hyphenation is its visual counterpart.
> > ; black bird,
> > blackbird). How rigorously to apply this trend may be problematical,
> > but if usage varies in particular cases I will feel free to choose the
> > style that agrees with the trend.
> >
> > I disagree with Mr Cunningham's advocacy of the use of hyphens solely
> > to avoid ambiguity in particular cases (large computer-manual - there
> > is no ambiguity in the hyphenless version because English clumps to
> > the right by default
>
> Do you mean that in multiple-word phrases each word qualifies the
> whole clump of words to its right by default? Here's an exception: an
> adverb only qualifies the word next to it.
Well, I was thinking specifically of strings of modifiers; but there
is indeed an obvious exception. This correlates with the fact that
adverbs and their modificands are usually not hyphenated, there being
a built-in pairing that renders a hyphen unnecessary. If the adverb
could also be an adjective (e.g., well, ill), though, it may need to
be hyphenated.
[ObCommabeforealeftparenthesis: Could that be written ‘If the adverb
could also be an adjective, though, (e.g., well, ill) it may need…'?]
> > ) - and of the omission of hyphens on the grounds
> > that they are not necessary (data only network) when in fact they are
> > required to produce clumping to the left.
>
> In _KE_ the Fowlers give the avoidance of possible ambiguity as the
> reason that adjectival phrases are hyphenated. And again in _MEU_,
> H.G. Fowler, with the agreement of Gowers, allows his conclusions to
> flow from Churchill's dictum that hyphens should be avoided wherever
> possible and suggests that hyphens in general may be omitted when no
> ambiguity would result. Furthermore, in the phrase 'others may think
> this over-nice', for example, he recommends the insertion of a hyphen
> that might not otherwise be needed, to prevent the false scent that
> could be occasioned by 'think this over'. The Fowlers would therefore
> appear to provide some support for Mr Cunningham's views on the use of
> hyphens.
The avoidance of ambiguity may have been the original motivation for
using hyphens. However, I suspect that the original considerations can
be used to define the circumstances under which hyphens should be
used, without continual reference to the criterion of ambiguity. For
example, always writing 'overnice' [NSOED] would obviate the need for
the recommended ad-hoc hyphen in the phrase 'others may think this
over-nice'. On the other hand, even in cases where the omission of a
hyphen technically causes no ambiguity, the hyphen serves the purpose
of warning the reader that the next word is unstressed. The assessment
of ambiguity on each occasion that a hyphen is or is not used should
not be necessary.
> > > In any case, your system is inadequate. If I understand you aright,
> > > you would write 'tale-teller' on the grounds that 'tale' is stressed.
> > > How would you hyphenate 'tall tale teller' in the sense of a teller of
> > > tall tales? How else but 'tall-tale teller'? Where then is the
> > > stress-indicating hyphen?
> >
> > A second level of hyphenation, for example as espoused by Mr Valentine
> > under the rubric of hyperhyphenation, could be used to indicate a
> > second degree of association between words. Your example would then be
> > rendered 'tall=tale-teller' to indicate that 'tall' and 'tale' are
> > more closely associated with each other than either is with 'teller'.
> > In the absence of a way of indicating a second degree of association,
> > however, the looser-binding hyphen is regrettably lost. The system is
> > imperfect.
>
> Accepted. I presume you'll not be espousing a second level of stress
> intonation.
I think I would've written 'Granted' there.
No, I would not espouse a second level of stress-intonation. I think
that for all practical purposes we are limited to a single level of
hyphenation and a single level of stress-intonation.
The inadequacy of a single level of hyphenation is further illustrated
by examples from _KE_: ‘Anglo-South Americans' and ‘King Mark-like'
(examples that appeared in print) are criticized, and
‘Anglo-South-Americans' and ‘King-Mark-like' are given as the best
that can be done. ‘Anglo-SouthAmericans' and ‘KingMark-like' are given
as superior solutions that were, however, judged too contrary to
contemporary usage. I wonder if they are too contrary to present
usage.
> > > I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
> > > is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
> > > criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
> > > of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
> > > that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
> > > hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
> > > mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
> > > Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
> >
> > It just so happens that I have on my shelves _Moby-Dick_, the short
> > stories of Dickens, _Alice in Wonderland_, _Through the
> > Looking-Glass_, _Lord Jim_, _Lolita_, _Ulysses_, _The Complete Saki_,
> > and assorted Greene and Carver. I will survey their hyphenation-styles
> > as you suggest.
>
> And don't forget to take account of the possibility of the alteration
> of their personal hyphenation practices by contemporary and later
> editors, as suggested by Ms Richoux.
I'll try. (I may even add George Orwell to the list.)
Gerald Smyth
Gerald Smyth
>
> [...]
>
> > Having been a hyphen-spotter since my thesis-writing days - always
> > trying not to take them too seriously, of course
>
> The hyphens, I presume. You look to be taking them pretty seriously
> now.
I tried to let the seriousness encroach only slowly, over a period of
twenty-odd years, at a rate consistent with the maintenance of sanity.
[snip]
> > . The main
> > pattern that seems to emerge is the hyphenation of combinations where
> > the stress is placed on the first element.
>
> The pattern was noted by H.W. & F.G. Fowler in _The King's English_ in
> 1906, and is further commented on in H.W. Fowler's _Modern English
> Usage_ (2nd edn, revised by Ernest Gowers).
They were my starting-point.
> > In speech, the stress
> > indicates that the combination has effectively become one word.
>
> All it really indicates is that the words in the combination have a
> closer association than would be indicated by an evenly stressed
> reading, including, of course, cases where the combination has
> effectively become one word.
Yes, that is a better statement of the position.
> > In
> > writing, this fact is visually indicated by hyphenation or by writing
> > the combination as one word (china box, china-box
>
> a box made of china and a box for china, resp.
Right (china box and CHINA-box). Stress indicates meaning, and
hyphenation is its visual counterpart.
> > ; black bird,
> > blackbird). How rigorously to apply this trend may be problematical,
> > but if usage varies in particular cases I will feel free to choose the
> > style that agrees with the trend.
> >
> > I disagree with Mr Cunningham's advocacy of the use of hyphens solely
> > to avoid ambiguity in particular cases (large computer-manual - there
> > is no ambiguity in the hyphenless version because English clumps to
> > the right by default
>
> Do you mean that in multiple-word phrases each word qualifies the
> whole clump of words to its right by default? Here's an exception: an
> adverb only qualifies the word next to it.
Well, I was thinking specifically of strings of modifiers; but there
is indeed an obvious exception. This correlates with the fact that
adverbs and their modificands are usually not hyphenated, there being
a built-in pairing that renders a hyphen unnecessary. If the adverb
could also be an adjective (e.g., well, ill, long), though, it may need to
be hyphenated.
[ObCommabeforealeftparenthesis: Could that be written ‘If the adverb
could also be an adjective, though, (e.g., well, ill, long) it may need…'?]
> > ) - and of the omission of hyphens on the grounds
> > that they are not necessary (data only network) when in fact they are
> > required to produce clumping to the left.
>
> In _KE_ the Fowlers give the avoidance of possible ambiguity as the
> reason that adjectival phrases are hyphenated. And again in _MEU_,
> H.G. Fowler, with the agreement of Gowers, allows his conclusions to
> flow from Churchill's dictum that hyphens should be avoided wherever
> possible and suggests that hyphens in general may be omitted when no
> ambiguity would result. Furthermore, in the phrase 'others may think
> this over-nice', for example, he recommends the insertion of a hyphen
> that might not otherwise be needed, to prevent the false scent that
> could be occasioned by 'think this over'. The Fowlers would therefore
> appear to provide some support for Mr Cunningham's views on the use of
> hyphens.
The avoidance of ambiguity may have been the original motivation for
using hyphens. However, I suspect that the original considerations can
be used to define the circumstances under which hyphens should be
used, without continual reference to the criterion of ambiguity. For
example, always writing 'overnice' [NSOED] would obviate the need for
the recommended ad-hoc hyphen in the phrase 'others may think this
over-nice'. On the other hand, even in cases where the omission of a
hyphen technically causes no ambiguity, the hyphen serves the purpose
of warning the reader that the next word is unstressed. The assessment
of ambiguity on each occasion that a hyphen is or is not used should
not be necessary.
> > > In any case, your system is inadequate. If I understand you aright,
> > > you would write 'tale-teller' on the grounds that 'tale' is stressed.
> > > How would you hyphenate 'tall tale teller' in the sense of a teller of
> > > tall tales? How else but 'tall-tale teller'? Where then is the
> > > stress-indicating hyphen?
> >
> > A second level of hyphenation, for example as espoused by Mr Valentine
> > under the rubric of hyperhyphenation, could be used to indicate a
> > second degree of association between words. Your example would then be
> > rendered 'tall=tale-teller' to indicate that 'tall' and 'tale' are
> > more closely associated with each other than either is with 'teller'.
> > In the absence of a way of indicating a second degree of association,
> > however, the looser-binding hyphen is regrettably lost. The system is
> > imperfect.
>
> Accepted. I presume you'll not be espousing a second level of stress
> intonation.
I think I would've written 'Granted' there.
No, I would not espouse a second level of stress-intonation. I think
that for all practical purposes we are limited to a single level of
hyphenation and a single level of stress-intonation.
The inadequacy of a single level of hyphenation is further illustrated
by examples from _KE_: ‘Anglo-South Americans' and ‘King Mark-like'
(examples that appeared in print) are criticized, and
‘Anglo-South-Americans' and ‘King-Mark-like' are given as the best
that can be done. ‘Anglo-SouthAmericans' and ‘KingMark-like' are given
as superior solutions that were, however, judged too contrary to
contemporary usage. I wonder if they are too contrary to present
usage.
> > > I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
> > > is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
> > > criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
> > > of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
> > > that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
> > > hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
> > > mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
> > > Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
> >
> > It just so happens that I have on my shelves _Moby-Dick_, the short
> > stories of Dickens, _Alice in Wonderland_, _Through the
> > Looking-Glass_, _Lord Jim_, _Lolita_, _Ulysses_, _The Complete Saki_,
> > and assorted Greene and Carver. I will survey their hyphenation-styles
> > as you suggest.
>
> And don't forget to take account of the possibility of the alteration
> of their personal hyphenation practices by contemporary and later
> editors, as suggested by Ms Richoux.
I'll try. (I may even add George Orwell to the list.)
Gerald Smyth
Aaron J. Dinkin
> The inadequacy of a single level of hyphenation is further illustrated
> by examples from _KE_: ?Anglo-South Americans' and ?King Mark-like'
> (examples that appeared in print) are criticized, and
> ?Anglo-South-Americans' and ?King-Mark-like' are given as the best
> that can be done. ?Anglo-SouthAmericans' and ?KingMark-like' are given
> as superior solutions that were, however, judged too contrary to
> contemporary usage. I wonder if they are too contrary to present
> usage.
Isn't the present usage to use an en dash? This can't be done in ASCII,
of course, but if <--> denotes an en dash, one would write <King
Mark--like> and <Anglo--South Americans>. The idea is that an en dash has
the power of a hyphen but can extend across white space when necessary; a
hyphen can't.
Ross Howard
<din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrought:
I've seen it quite often in GQ-, Esquire- and New Yorker--type
magazines.
Just like that.
***********
Ross Howard
Gerald Smyth
I don't think I'd never noticed an en-dash used that way. That's not
to say it's not, just that I haven't noticed (maybe I haven't been
reading the right magazines). [I do seem to remember some such system
from titles in the _Journal of Biological Chemistry_ from way back
when, though, but I'd have to confirm it.]
I suppose the idea is that an en-dash would push 羨nglo' and 鼠ike' a
bit farther away from their respective two-word clumps than a hyphen
would. I can see that, but I would pose the following questions:
(1) Can an en-dash really extend across white space if a hyphen can't?
(2) If it can, why would that power be limited to 層hen necessary', or
what would curtail that power when it was not necessary? (3) Does the
em-dash have a greater power to extend across white space?
It's just that it strikes me that the necessity for the alleged
extending-across-white-space power of the en-dash has to be decided by
contextual or other clues such as the presence of capital initials
(shades of hypohyphenation[1]). In that case, the en-dash isn't really
doing anything a hyphen couldn't.
However, for me, not only the hyphen but also the en-dash fails to
extend across white space. For me, the en-dash binds two words more
closely than white space, though arguably less closely than a hyphen.
Now it might work for me if the two-word clumps were themselves
hyphenated: Anglo--South-Americans and King-Mark--like. Which brings
us round to hyperhyphenation[1]: Anglo-South=Americans and
King=Mark-like. That would also work for me.
But present usage is present usage, whether or not it works for me.
[1]Word and concept due to Mr Valentine, as far as I know.
Gerald Smyth
PJ Dillberry
> pjdil...@yahoo.com (PJ Dillberry) wrote in message news:<ddbcf68a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > gerald...@yahoo.com (Gerald Smyth) wrote in message news:<6bf07756.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Having been a hyphen-spotter since my thesis-writing days - always
> > > trying not to take them too seriously, of course
> >
> > The hyphens, I presume. You look to be taking them pretty seriously
> > now.
>
> I tried to let the seriousness encroach only slowly, over a period of
> twenty-odd years, at a rate consistent with the maintenance of sanity.
And did you succeed?
> [snip]
>
> > > . The main
> > > pattern that seems to emerge is the hyphenation of combinations where
> > > the stress is placed on the first element.
> >
> > The pattern was noted by H.W. & F.G. Fowler in _The King's English_ in
> > 1906, and is further commented on in H.W. Fowler's _Modern English
> > Usage_ (2nd edn, revised by Ernest Gowers).
>
> They were my starting-point.
Fair enough. It's just that it looked as though you were claiming to
have noticed that pattern for yourself, entirely as a result of your
own observations. If you've read _MEU_ on the subject, you'll know
that Fowler was fully aware of the pattern.
[...]
> a built-in pairing that renders a hyphen unnecessary. If the adverb
> could also be an adjective (e.g., well, ill, long), though, it may need to
> be hyphenated.
> [ObCommabeforealeftparenthesis: Could that be written ?If the adverb
> could also be an adjective, though, (e.g., well, ill, long) it may need?'?]
There may be some advantage to having ‘though' up front as you have in
the second version, but what you would need to compare that version
with would be ‘If the adverb could also be an adjective, though (e.g.,
well, ill, long), it may need...'. On the one hand, one rarely if ever
sees a comma placed directly before a left parenthesis, which leads
one to wonder whether it is one of those things that are Just Not Done
(like commas placed directly after dashes). On the other hand, it
seems somewhat illogical to coop the examples up with the single word
‘though', with which they have nothing to do, by a pair of commas. I
may well be tempted by the unusual pre-left-parenthesis comma.
I don't suppose - heh-heh! - you'd care to take a stab at defining
those circumstances.
Well, in any case, we'll hopefully see how it all holds up after
you've completed your survey.
[...]
> The inadequacy of a single level of hyphenation is further illustrated
> by examples from _KE_: ?Anglo-South Americans' and ?King Mark-like'
> (examples that appeared in print) are criticized, and
> ?Anglo-South-Americans' and ?King-Mark-like' are given as the best
> that can be done. ?Anglo-SouthAmericans' and ?KingMark-like' are given
> as superior solutions that were, however, judged too contrary to
> contemporary usage. I wonder if they are too contrary to present
> usage.
I would say it is less contrary to usage now than it was in Fowler's
day. For one thing, we have all those company names with capital
letters in mid-word (ImClone, GenoFunction) or with names pushed
together while allowing their capitals to stand (HarperCollins,
SmithKlineBeecham). It looked awful at first, but I suppose one gets
used to it. One sometimes also now sees ‘unAmerican'.
> > > > I can understand your wanting to follow a system by which hyphenation
> > > > is cleanly and automatically decided by some fairly objective
> > > > criterion. But you'll need to be able to explain (away) the breakdown
> > > > of your system in all but the simplest cases. You'll also need to show
> > > > that your stress-related Hyphengefühl has some basis in the
> > > > hyphenation practices of the great and the good (Melville comes to
> > > > mind, and Dickens, Lewis Carroll, Conrad, Nabokov, James Joyce, Saki,
> > > > Somerset Maugham, Graham Greene, Raymond Carver).
> > >
> > > It just so happens that I have on my shelves _Moby-Dick_, the short
> > > stories of Dickens, _Alice in Wonderland_, _Through the
> > > Looking-Glass_, _Lord Jim_, _Lolita_, _Ulysses_, _The Complete Saki_,
> > > and assorted Greene and Carver. I will survey their hyphenation-styles
> > > as you suggest.
> >
> > And don't forget to take account of the possibility of the alteration
> > of their personal hyphenation practices by contemporary and later
> > editors, as suggested by Ms Richoux.
>
> I'll try. (I may even add George Orwell to the list.)
On second thoughts you needn't worry about distinguishing the personal
and published hyphenation styles of an author if you can secure a
first edition or facsimile. Generally if changes were made the author
will have seen them in the proofs. Changes made by later editors may
be a greater source of error but reliability can be assessed by
comparing different editions. The main thing is to get some idea of
the degree of consistency of hyphenation styles over time and among
modern authors.
Pat Dillberry
dcw
Aaron J. Dinkin <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Isn't the present usage to use an en dash? This can't be done in ASCII,
>of course, but if <--> denotes an en dash, one would write <King
>Mark--like> and <Anglo--South Americans>. The idea is that an en dash has
>the power of a hyphen but can extend across white space when necessary; a
>hyphen can't.
This may not have crossed the Pond yet -- I've only seen it in American
writing. It takes a bit of getting used to.
David
J. W. Love
>Isn't the present usage to use an en dash? This can't be
>done in ASCII, of course, but if <--> denotes an en dash,
>one would write <King Mark--like> and <Anglo--South
>Americans>. The idea is that an en dash has the power of
>a hyphen but can extend across white space when
>necessary; a hyphen can't.
It's also a standard way of joining compound modifiers: instead of the en-dash
in
a Sigmund Freud--Carl Jung conference,
the hyphen in
a Sigmund Freud-Carl Jung conference
would supposedly lead us to the idea that it's a conference about a man
surnamed Jung, whose first name is Sigmund and whose middle name is Freud-Carl.
Some stylesheets require the en-dash for all multiple modifiers in this
structure, even when they're simple, as:
a Freud--Jung conference.
The idea may be that a hyphen would lead us to the idea that it's a conference
about Dr. Freud-Jung, and the way to avoid that error is to deploy an en-dash.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "Aaron J. Dinkin" <din...@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:<bmib7d$4n3o$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>> Isn't the present usage to use an en dash? This can't be done in ASCII,
>> of course, but if <--> denotes an en dash, one would write <King
>> Mark--like> and <Anglo--South Americans>. The idea is that an en dash has
>> the power of a hyphen but can extend across white space when necessary; a
>> hyphen can't.
>
> I don't think I'd never noticed an en-dash used that way. That's not
> to say it's not, just that I haven't noticed (maybe I haven't been
> reading the right magazines).
This page, for example,
<http://www.nyu.edu/classes/copyXediting/Punctuation.html#en>, from a
copyediting class at NYU, describes the use of en dashes as having the
power I mention above. It also says en dashes are to be used in place of
hyphens before capital letters (<pro--American>), which I hadn't heard
before.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> This page, for example,
> <http://www.nyu.edu/classes/copyXediting/Punctuation.html#en>, from a
> copyediting class at NYU, describes the use of en dashes as having the
> power I mention above. It also says en dashes are to be used in place
> of hyphens before capital letters (<pro--American>), which I hadn't
> heard before.
I've just dreamed up a basis for that one, and I'd be interested if a
professional typographer (Odysseus?) would care to comment.
The most frequent use of the en dash is to separate numbers when
expressing a range. In earlier times, the digits in a typeface were
designed to match lowercase glyphs, and therefore the en dash was
positioned vertically at the same point as the hyphen, which was itself
positioned to sit comfortably between lowercase glyphs.
However, during the early part of the 20th century we saw the
introduction of "non-lining" digits in typefaces; these matched
uppercase glyphs, and were selected for sections composed primarily of
digits. The older "lining" digits were reserved for isolated groups
within running text, such as years and chapter number references.
During the latter part of the century the lining digits finally dropped
out altogether, and it's rare to encounter them these days.
This all meant that the original en dash was too low, and it was raised
above the hyphen to be more suitable to separate non-lining, ie
uppercase, glyphs. Therefore it was recommended instead of the hyphen
to stand against upper case *letters* as well.
Matti
Adrian Bailey
Aaaaaargh. People are confused enough already without using as a hyphen
something that looks like a dash.
Adrian