 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007When do you hyphenate up-to-date?
My apologies for my ignorance on this matter, but I'm puzzled on when to hypenate adjectives when they occur after the noun they modify. Sometimes you use hyhpens as in the following sentence: The device is file-oriented. Well, I'd certainly use the hyphen here. But I'm very confused when it comes to the phrase "up to date". Let me bring you up to date. OK -- no hyphens, as the phrase is an adverb followed by a prepostional phrase (Is that right???). Well, I think of it as each word being a normal part of the flow of the sentence. The up-to-date version of the book is now on sale. OK -- hyphens, as it is a compound modifier placed before the noun it modifies. It is up to date. Hmmm... hyphens or not? The book is up to date. Hyphens or not? And, in general, when do you hyphenate a compound modifier that occurs after the noun it modifies? Thanks! AEF Chicago Manual Of Style:- A compound may be of the made-up-for-the-occasion variety: "The up-to-date figures were unadjusted." But when these terms are used in the predicate they are not hyphenated: The compound word was made up for the occasion. "The unadjusted figures were up to date." > Chicago Manual Of Style:- > > A compound may be of the made-up-for-the-occasion variety: "The > up-to-date figures were unadjusted." But when these terms are used in > the predicate they are not hyphenated: The compound word was made up > for the occasion. "The unadjusted figures were up to date." But what about sentences like the following: The service was family-oriented. You certainly wouldn't write, "The service was family oriented." Would you? The normal flow of the sentence doesn't work without a hyphen there. That's why I though some uses of "up to date" after the noun its modifying might require a hyphen. OTOH, I guess you wouldn't write, "The wheel was sped-up." Thanks AEF > But what about sentences like the following: > > The service was family-oriented. > > You certainly wouldn't write, "The service was family oriented." Would > you? Yes of course I would. Why wouldn't I? I'd write, "The family-oriented service is at 10 AM" though. (Actually, I'm an atheist and I don't go to church services) > The normal flow of the sentence doesn't work without a hyphen > there. Well, it does for me. Actually, I'm not sure how a typographical element can affect "flow", or even what you think "flow" is, or why you think it is so important. > OTOH, I guess you wouldn't write, "The wheel was sped-up." No indeed. I'd write "the wheel was speeded up" or "the wheel was made to revolve faster". > > But what about sentences like the following: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > element can affect "flow", or even what you think "flow" is, or why you > think it is so important. Well, I'm sorry my knowledge of grammar is not sufficient to avoid terms like "flow". You wouldn't write, "The family oriented show was good." The reason is that the "normal flow" of "family oriented" is that the family oriented something. But here that's not the meaning! The meaning is instead that the subject, the show, was oriented toward family. So to spare the reader from having to pause and reread and analyze the sentence the writer should write it as "family-oriented" to make it clear what the meaning is. Another example: You wouldn't write "The rose colored glasses fell of the table." And I, at least, wouldn't write, "The glasses that fell off the table were rose colored" because the initial read of "rose colored" reads like a rose colored something, which is not the intended meaning. > > OTOH, I guess you wouldn't write, "The wheel was sped-up." > > No indeed. I'd write "the wheel was speeded up" or "the wheel was made > to revolve faster". AEF > Well, I'm sorry my knowledge of grammar is not sufficient to avoid > terms like "flow". You wouldn't write, "The family oriented show was > good." The reason is that the "normal flow" of "family oriented" is > that the family oriented something. But here that's not the meaning! OK then. What did the family orient? "Show"? Huh? I think you are assuming that everybody has the same (poor) reading skills that you do. > So to spare the reader from having to pause and reread and > analyze the sentence It's only you that has to do this. > the writer should write it as "family-oriented" to > make it clear what the meaning is. Nonsense. > Another example: You wouldn't write "The rose colored glasses fell of > the table." And I, at least, wouldn't write, "The glasses that fell off > the table were rose colored" because the initial read of "rose colored" > reads like a rose colored something, which is not the intended meaning. Most people comprehend a sentence as a whole, and would avoid this kind of problem. Please don't tell me what I would and wouldn't write! Particularly when you're wrong. The presence or absence of a hyphen does not actually alter the "meaning" of a sentence, any more than the presence or absence of a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence, or of a period at the end of it alters the meaning. > > Well, I'm sorry my knowledge of grammar is not sufficient to avoid > > terms like "flow". You wouldn't write, "The family oriented show was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think you are assuming that everybody has the same (poor) reading > skills that you do. Well, there's not need to get hostile. If you continue being hostile you'll quickly find yourself in my plonk box, never to escape!!! > > So to spare the reader from having to pause and reread and > > analyze the sentence > > It's only you that has to do this. I know I read somewhere that a writer should hyphenate where needed to avoid this. In fact, I think it was in this very ng. Others in this ng agree with me, so it's not only I. > > the writer should write it as "family-oriented" to > > make it clear what the meaning is. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Most people comprehend a sentence as a whole, and would avoid this kind > of problem. But poorly written stuff like this accumulates as the reader moves on, causing (perhaps a subtle) reader fatigue. From the LaTeX manual refering to an ambiguity caused by poor typography of an equation: "It is a mistake because it is ambiguous; the typography does not tell us whether or not the "For all x" is part of equation (7). When we later read: "Assume that (7) holds," we can't tell from (7) whether we should assume f(x)=g(x+1) for some particular x or for all x. We would probably figure out quickly form the text which was meant--so quickly that we might not even be aware of the ambiguity. However, [and pay attention here] the cumulative effect of a lot of little typographic mnistakes is to make reading the document more strenuous than it should be. [P] LaTeX discourages you from making this mistake by requiring...." OK. No, we're not doing math here, but you get the point. > Please don't tell me what I would and wouldn't write! Particularly when > you're wrong. Sorry, too bad. > The presence or absence of a hyphen does not actually alter the > "meaning" of a sentence, any more than the presence or absence of a > capital letter at the beginning of a sentence, or of a period at the > end of it alters the meaning. I will recover the sofa. I will re-cover the sofa. He is a small-business man. She has gray-green eyes. Did you see the Lincoln Hardy debate? Did you see the Lincoln-Hardy debate? I'm sure there are even better examples, but I can't think of any right now. There's also not vs. now -- a big difference. A CaPiTaL letter? does THIS look COrrect to you? How about a pronouncement from Caesar regarding the fate of a prisoner: Caesar said, "Liberate, not execute." It was mistakenly transcribed as "Liberate not, execute". A deadly difference. I am asking what is proper usage. That's the whole point of this NG, right? One could misspell words and still be understood, but if I ask how to spell something I don't want a response like yours. AEF > Well, there's not need to get hostile. If you continue being hostile > you'll quickly find yourself in my plonk box, never to escape!!! I have been wishing I hadn't been. > > > Another example: You wouldn't write "The rose colored glasses fell of > > > the table." I wonder if there is a difference in the way you and I comprehend sentences of that type. I do not actually start at "The", and then proceed to "rose colored", at which point I start to wonder what exactly it was that the rose colored eg with a crayon, before seeing the "fell off the table" and experiencing a grinding of the mental gears, all because of a missing hyphen. I swallow the whole sentence before digesting it. Not being a Martian, I am aware of the most likely interpretation. > But poorly written stuff like this accumulates as the reader moves on, > causing (perhaps a subtle) reader fatigue. It certainly seems to for you. > From the LaTeX manual Uh-oh. > No, we're not doing math here, but you get the point. It may not be the point you intended. > > The presence or absence of a hyphen does not actually alter the > > "meaning" of a sentence, any more than the presence or absence of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Did you see the Lincoln Hardy debate? > Did you see the Lincoln-Hardy debate? OK I'll concede that I was hasty there. But those are NOT examples of what we were talking about. > There's also not vs. now -- a big difference. Huh??? > A CaPiTaL letter? does THIS look COrrect to you? No, but if I saw a notice in a hotel which was headed, "In CaSe oF fIRe", I'd still read it carefully. You clearly didn't understand what I said about 'meaning'. > Caesar said, "Liberate, not execute." It was mistakenly transcribed as > "Liberate not, execute". A deadly difference. I am amazed to learn that Caesar spoke English! Was he a Time Lord? His transcribers must have been, too, since they could write in it, and had apparently heard of commas. Yet were too stupid to enquire about such an important matter. Odd, that. (You obviously think I am an idiot!) I think we both have the impression that one of us is a simpleton. I know you think it's me, but that Caesar thing makes me have decidedly the opposite conviction... > > Well, there's not need to get hostile. If you continue being hostile > > you'll quickly find yourself in my plonk box, never to escape!!! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > before digesting it. Not being a Martian, I am aware of the most likely > interpretation. The question was about proper usage. You apparently think little of the reason for proper usage. Fine. But don't harp on me for it! Isn't "proper usage" the rai?son d'?tre for this newsgroup? > > But poorly written stuff like this accumulates as the reader moves on, > > causing (perhaps a subtle) reader fatigue. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It may not be the point you intended. Whatever. > > > The presence or absence of a hyphen does not actually alter the > > > "meaning" of a sentence, any more than the presence or absence of a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OK I'll concede that I was hasty there. But those are NOT examples of > what we were talking about. Again, the point was what was proper usage. I run (IT) Change Management at my company and for some reason it's just annoying to see so many subjects without proper hyphenation. Maybe it's worse with techincal subjects than whatever you read. I prefer that people make proper use of hyphens so that it's easier to read the subjects. I have to read these aloud at the meetings and it's not fun when the hyphens are missing. (Then there are the other usage problems, but that's another story.) > > There's also not vs. now -- a big difference. > > Huh??? A typo of a 't' vs. a 'w' makes an enourmous difference. This actually happened in an email from my graduate advisor many years ago. I don't recall the exact sentence but it read fine but I had to waste time clearing up the matter and almost did the wrong thing. So typos can make a big difference. > > A CaPiTaL letter? does THIS look COrrect to you? > > No, but if I saw a notice in a hotel which was headed, "In CaSe oF > fIRe", I'd still read it carefully. You clearly didn't understand what > I said about 'meaning'. I'd read it and think it was a joke. Ever see the commercial for "Jiffy" on SNL? (You're kidding, right? You'd take a sign like that seriously?) > > Caesar said, "Liberate, not execute." It was mistakenly transcribed as > > "Liberate not, execute". A deadly difference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > apparently heard of commas. Yet were too stupid to enquire about such > an important matter. Odd, that. (You obviously think I am an idiot!) Hmmm. I guess I didn't take enough care to be sure the reader didn't misinterpret! Here's some additional info to clarify the above. (It's a Word document. Perhaps it would be easier to use Google and search for "execute not liberate" and click the first listing. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:oyrkrnRZh1UJ:www.dfi.org/resources/Author%2 520Speaker%2520Toolbox/PaperGuidelines.doc+%22execute+not+liberate%22&hl=en&gl=u s&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a If you search for Caesar, you'll find: Notice that there is a difference of meaning between "Also, the experiments showed that..." and "Also the experiments showed that..." and use a comma in sentences such as: "In Fig. 16, the traces are..." Commas are important. Consider the life and death importance of whether Caesar's decision about your appeal of mercy reads "Execute, not liberate", or "Execute not, liberate". > I think we both have the impression that one of us is a simpleton. I > know you think it's me, but that Caesar thing makes me have decidedly > the opposite conviction... Nope. I do not think you're a simpleton. What do I think of you? Words escape me at the moment. AEF >>>I will recover the sofa. >>>I will re-cover the sofa. >>>He is a small-business man. >>>She has gray-green eyes. >>>Did you see the Lincoln Hardy debate? >>>Did you see the Lincoln-Hardy debate? > Again, the point was what was proper usage. I run (IT) Change > Management at my company and for some reason it's just annoying to see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to read these aloud at the meetings and it's not fun when the hyphens > are missing. Sorry to butt in on a private argument, but it seems to me that a lot of young Americans have been taught that all compound adjectives must have hyphens and that this is the only proper way. For a start, there is no Académie Anglaise, so there is no arbiter of "proper usage"; secondly, outside North America, the use of hyphens is far from standard. Your examples above are good ones. I agree that hyphens should be used where a genuine ambiguity is likely, but "rose coloured spectacles" is a set phrase that nobody is likely to get confused about; the same with "family oriented". I would think that everyone who reads or writes in this newsgroup is in favour of clear, unambiguous prose, but that does not mean that "rules" for "proper usage" exist outside the minds of a few prescriptive writers of grammar or style manuals. Nor are they necessary. Each writer must find his/her own solution to the problem of presenting ideas clearly. Sometimes, this may require hyphens; at other times, not.  SignatureRob Bannister > >>>I will recover the sofa. > >>>I will re-cover the sofa. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Académie Anglaise, so there is no arbiter of "proper usage"; secondly, > outside North America, the use of hyphens is far from standard. Don't know why you think that young Americans are over-hyphenating. I see just the opposite and it gets really annoying having to read aloud titles (or subjects) that are not hyphenated "properly". What Americans are doing now, at least what I keep hearing, are abominations like "have did", "should have went", and so on. And the number of people I find doing this is unbelievably high. > Your examples above are good ones. I agree that hyphens should be used > where a genuine ambiguity is likely, but "rose coloured spectacles" is a > set phrase that nobody is likely to get confused about; the same with > "family oriented". But I think it reads better with the hyphens. > I would think that everyone who reads or writes in this newsgroup is in > favour of clear, unambiguous prose, but that does not mean that "rules" > for "proper usage" exist outside the minds of a few prescriptive writers > of grammar or style manuals. Nor are they necessary. Each writer must > find his/her own solution to the problem of presenting ideas clearly. > Sometimes, this may require hyphens; at other times, not. I'll give you that to some extent the "rules" are not absolute. But there are well-accepted conventions. Sentences start with capital letters, proper nouns are capitalized, punctuation follows certain rules, etc. Though I admit it is not like the laws of physics, which while they are not fully known, they are strictly followed. Then there's spelling. If there are no independent rules, why do we have dictionaries? > Then there's spelling. If there are no independent rules, why do we > have dictionaries? Dictionaries are useful for checking the meaning of new words, but when it gets to spelling, it seems most of them list all reasonably common spellings. I can't remember all the examples that have been pointed out in this newsgroup, but "miniscule" comes to mind, and I think some dictionaries include "supercede". SignatureRob Bannister > > Then there's spelling. If there are no independent rules, why do we > > have dictionaries? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in this newsgroup, but "miniscule" comes to mind, and I think some > dictionaries include "supercede". Yes. And, as I've said before, it's a weakness in the Anglophone intellectual's mindset. We confuse our political notions of democracy with our "scientific" notions of descriptive and historical language-study. The two belong in completely separate departments. There's actually nothing undemocratic or unscientific about saying a usage is inadvisable or even flat-out wrong. It's actually more democratic to set a clear standard available to all instead of leaving it to indeterminate and faceless elites to snigger behind their hands at anybody who writes "miniscule". But who might decide, and who would announce the decision. . . well, that's a tricky question. Especially as I, for one, would be very ready to resist. SignatureMike. On 31 Dec 2006, Mike Lyle wrote >>> Then there's spelling. If there are no independent rules, why >>> do we have dictionaries? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > unscientific about saying a usage is inadvisable or even > flat-out wrong. But Robert's speaking of dictionaries, and surely any reputable dictionary does precisely that -- by either not listing errors like "miniscule" and "supercede" (Collins omits them), or by listing the spellings and noting the degree to which they are considered erroneous. I don't have a huge collection of dictionaries to check, but all of mine do something along that line. The MW on-line entry for "miniscule", for example, notes the source of confusion over the spelling and states "This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error." (A similar comment is found for "supercede", with the note that it's been around since the 17th century.) I really fail to see any grounds for objecting to that approach on the basis that it over-accommodates variant spellings. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >The question was about proper usage. You apparently think little of the >reason for proper usage. Fine. But don't harp on me for it! Isn't >"proper usage" the rai·son d'être for this newsgroup? I've never seen "don't harp on me" used before. The subject, not the person, is usually what is harped on: "Don't harp on that to me". I won't bring it up again, though. I wouldn't want to harp on your usage. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >The question was about proper usage. You apparently think little of the > >reason for proper usage. Fine. But don't harp on me for it! Isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Tony Cooper > Orlando, FL Not a problem. Yes, this is apparently non-standard usage. You are 100% correct. AEF > > Well, there's not need to get hostile. If you continue being hostile > > you'll quickly find yourself in my plonk box, never to escape!!! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > before digesting it. Not being a Martian, I am aware of the most likely > interpretation. The question was about proper usage. You apparently think little of the reason for proper usage. Fine. But don't harp on me for it! Isn't "proper usage" the rai?son d'?tre for this newsgroup? > > But poorly written stuff like this accumulates as the reader moves on, > > causing (perhaps a subtle) reader fatigue. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It may not be the point you intended. Whatever. > > > The presence or absence of a hyphen does not actually alter the > > > "meaning" of a sentence, any more than the presence or absence of a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OK I'll concede that I was hasty there. But those are NOT examples of > what we were talking about. Again, the point was what was proper usage. I run (IT) Change Management at my company and for some reason it's just annoying to see so many subjects without proper hyphenation. Maybe it's worse with techincal subjects than whatever you read. I prefer that people make proper use of hyphens so that it's easier to read the subjects. I have to read these aloud at the meetings and it's not fun when the hyphens are missing. (Then there are the other usage problems, but that's another story.) > > There's also not vs. now -- a big difference. > > Huh??? A typo of a 't' vs. a 'w' makes an enourmous difference. This actually happened in an email from my graduate advisor many years ago. I don't recall the exact sentence but it read fine but I had to waste time clearing up the matter and almost did the wrong thing. So typos can make a big difference. > > A CaPiTaL letter? does THIS look COrrect to you? > > No, but if I saw a notice in a hotel which was headed, "In CaSe oF > fIRe", I'd still read it carefully. You clearly didn't understand what > I said about 'meaning'. I'd read it and think it was a joke. Ever see the commercial for "Jiffy" on SNL? (You're kidding, right? You'd take a sign like that seriously?) > > Caesar said, "Liberate, not execute." It was mistakenly transcribed as > > "Liberate not, execute". A deadly difference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > apparently heard of commas. Yet were too stupid to enquire about such > an important matter. Odd, that. (You obviously think I am an idiot!) Hmmm. I guess I didn't take enough care to be sure the reader didn't misinterpret! Here's some additional info to clarify the above. (It's a Word document. Perhaps it would be easier to use Google and search for "execute not liberate" and click the first listing. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:oyrkrnRZh1UJ:www.dfi.org/resources/Author%2 520Speaker%2520Toolbox/PaperGuidelines.doc+%22execute+not+liberate%22&hl=en&gl=u s&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a If you search for Caesar, you'll find: Notice that there is a difference of meaning between "Also, the experiments showed that..." and "Also the experiments showed that..." and use a comma in sentences such as: "In Fig. 16, the traces are..." Commas are important. Consider the life and death importance of whether Caesar's decision about your appeal of mercy reads "Execute, not liberate", or "Execute not, liberate". > I think we both have the impression that one of us is a simpleton. I > know you think it's me, but that Caesar thing makes me have decidedly > the opposite conviction... Nope. I do not think you're a simpleton. What do I think of you? Words escape me at the moment. AEF [...] > > > The presence or absence of a hyphen does not actually alter the > > > "meaning" of a sentence, any more than the presence or absence of a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OK I'll concede that I was hasty there. But those are NOT examples of > what we were talking about. There's a new subject in this very newsgroup: Ass-saving rewarded! OK, still not the best example. [...] AEF [...] > > A CaPiTaL letter? does THIS look COrrect to you? > > No, but if I saw a notice in a hotel which was headed, "In CaSe oF > fIRe", I'd still read it carefully. You clearly didn't understand what > I said about 'meaning'. And you clearly didn't understand what I said about proper usage being the whole reason for existence of this newsgroup. Don't blame *me* for an interest in proper usage and the reasons behind it!!! > > Caesar said, "Liberate, not execute." It was mistakenly transcribed as > > "Liberate not, execute". A deadly difference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > apparently heard of commas. Yet were too stupid to enquire about such > an important matter. Odd, that. (You obviously think I am an idiot!) You're really nitpicking here. It's just a story for illustrating a point. Sheeesh. Another gem from the Web: The substitution of an inaccurate single "letter" in the genetic message causes a lifethreatening disease such as sickle cell. A tale of uncertain origin has it that Caesar intended to grant forgiveness to one of his army officers, issued the order "Execute not, liberate." The message, however, was passed along with one small mistake; the comma was misplaced and read "Execute, not liberate." And the unfortunate man lost his life.17 [...] You're nitpicking and if you continue nitpicking I'm outta here! AEF > And you clearly didn't understand what I said about proper usage being > the whole reason for existence of this newsgroup. Don't blame *me* for > an interest in proper usage and the reasons behind it!!! I understood fine. I just don't agree, particularly about 'proper' usage. I don't take advice from anybody who thinks triple exclamation points are acceptable. I don't like IT managers who harrumph about 'proper hyphenation'. It's just a thing-I-have. > You're really nitpicking here. It's just a story for illustrating a > point. Sheeesh. A poor one. > A tale of uncertain origin has it that > Caesar intended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > read "Execute, not liberate." And the unfortunate man lost his > life. I don't believe it for a moment. > You're nitpicking and if you continue nitpicking I'm outta here! Is that a promise? > > And you clearly didn't understand what I said about proper usage being > > the whole reason for existence of this newsgroup. Don't blame *me* for > > an interest in proper usage and the reasons behind it!!! > > I understood fine. I just don't agree, particularly about 'proper' > usage. You don't agree that "proper usage" is the reason for the existence of this newsgroup? If not that, then what? And I don't understand what you mean by "particularly about 'proper' usage". > I don't take advice from anybody who thinks triple exclamation points > are acceptable. I wasn't giving you advice. > I don't like IT managers who harrumph about 'proper hyphenation'. It's > just a thing-I-have. I don't like pausing in mid-sentence just to have to reread a subject or title because I read it wrong first. I also don't want to waste everyone's time proofreading things. I don't care what you like. > > You're really nitpicking here. It's just a story for illustrating a > > point. Sheeesh. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't believe it for a moment. Uh, that's not the point. Either you don't get the point, or you're compounding your own nitpicking. You're simply trying to evade the subject algother and I'm not going to fall for it! Clue: It doesn't matter if it "really happened". It illustrates a valid point. You're either really bored or a troll. > > You're nitpicking and if you continue nitpicking I'm outta here! > > Is that a promise? Yep. I've got better things to do with my time. BTW, here's a good one: more-efficient light bulbs vs. more efficient light bulbs Clearly they mean different things. The first means light bulbs that are more efficient. The second means a greater number of efficient light bulbs. The first is in an article in the business section of today's New York Times. BTW, this article is loaded with hyphenated phrases. AEF >> > And you clearly didn't understand what I said about proper usage being >> > the whole reason for existence of this newsgroup. Don't blame *me* for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >this newsgroup? If not that, then what? And I don't understand what you >mean by "particularly about 'proper' usage". The group is here to discuss, amongst other things, usage. Not 'proper' usage, just usage. Some usage will be 'proper' in one dialect, and not 'proper' in another. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it is. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > >> > And you clearly didn't understand what I said about proper usage being > >> > the whole reason for existence of this newsgroup. Don't blame *me* for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > dialect, and not 'proper' in another. I'm sorry if you don't like > that, but that's how it is. sO; what you,re saying here; is that there is---- no PROPEr usAge? I understand that some rules are a little "fuzzy", like hyphenation, and are subject to variation due to varying opinions, dialects, and what have you. But others tend more toward the hard and fast, like spelling. Others vary, like puncutation. I really wouldn't expect most educated people to find sentences like "The family oriented show was long" to be "acceptable". Or some other examples: sister in law A know-it-all expression vs. A know it all expression. pre Renaissance re ink What about using a hyphen when a word is broken at the end of a line -- is that optional? OTOH, Merriam Webster, and only MW as far as I can tell, says to use a "double hyphen" if a hyphenated word is being broken across lines at the location of its hyphen. > -- > Linz > Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford > My accent may vary AEF > I understand that some rules are a little "fuzzy", like hyphenation, > and are subject to variation due to varying opinions, dialects, and > what have you. But others tend more toward the hard and fast, like > spelling. I am frequently irritated by the compiler of the cryptic crossword I do every day for the way he/she hyphenates words I would write as one, writes as one word words I would write as two or writes as two words a word that I would hyphenate. However, I am only mildly irritated because there are no clear-cut rules about this. Dictionaries vary wildly on the subject, but most explain in their preface that there is no rigid format. I know there are many words that I write as one word today, where formerly I would have had them separate. Then there are the once common, but now rarely seen "to-day" and "to-morrow" SignatureRob Bannister >> >> > And you clearly didn't understand what I said about proper usage being >> >> > the whole reason for existence of this newsgroup. Don't blame *me* for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >sO; what you,re saying here; is that there is---- no PROPEr usAge? I beg your pardon? SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary If I wanted to tell hunting guests that they were welcome, I should choose to write "we like hunting-guests" rather than leave the hyphen out and suggest that hunting our guests was a favorite pastime of ours. CW > If I wanted to tell hunting guests that they were welcome, I should > choose to write "we like hunting-guests" rather than leave the hyphen > out and suggest that hunting our guests was a favorite pastime of > ours. Calling Rewrite! On 26 Dec 2006, AEF wrote >> Chicago Manual Of Style:- >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You certainly wouldn't write, "The service was family oriented." > Would you? Count me as one who certainly would; "family-oriented service", but "service was family oriented". -snip- > OTOH, I guess you wouldn't write, "The wheel was sped-up." Allowing for the issue of "sped-up" versus "speeded-up", why on earth wouldn't someone who writes "the service was family- oriented" write "the wheel was sped-up"? Whether the hyphen is or isn't appropriate might be arguable, but the issue of consistency simply isn't negotiable.... SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [ ... ] > Allowing for the issue of "sped-up" versus "speeded-up", why on > earth wouldn't someone who writes "the service was family- > oriented" write "the wheel was sped-up"? > > Whether the hyphen is or isn't appropriate might be arguable, but > the issue of consistency simply isn't negotiable.... So if I hyphenate a sentence-concluding phrase in which a noun modifier precedes a past participle, I have to hyphenate a sentence-concluding phrase in which a past participle is followed by an adverb? Sure, why not? That's one bucket-load of consistency, Harvey. I'd probably not hyphenate both, but I can see hyphenating "familiy-oriented" but not "sped [or speeded] up." SignatureBob Lieblich Do I contradict myself? (Oh, no, not that Whitman guy again!) A.E.F.: > > But what about sentences like the following: > > > > The service was family-oriented. > > > > You certainly wouldn't write, "The service was family oriented." > > Would you? Harvey Van Sickle: > Count me as one who certainly would; "family-oriented service", > but "service was family oriented". And I certainly wouldn't; it looks illiterate to me. The distinction with these forms that should always be hyphenated -- family-oriented, English-speaker, hyphen-deleter -- is that in the phrases that they are formed from, the first word is grammatically the object of the second or of a non-expressed prepositional phrase. It's oriented to the family, she speaks English, he deletes hyphens. Compare: The service was oriented to the family. It was an oriented-to-the-family service. The service was family-oriented. It was a family-oriented service. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Remember, folks, determinism is your *friend*! msb@vex.net | (Or is that "Your friend is deterministic"?) My text in this article is in the public domain. > A.E.F.: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > My text in this article is in the public domain. OK, thanks for the great explanation and examples. Now, back to "up to date." 1.) He brought the book up to date. 2.) The book was brought up to date. 3.) The book is up to date. (Maybe this one needs "up-to-date" instead?) 4.) This is an up-to-date book. What role does the phrase "up to date" play in 3? Is it an adjective modifying the book? Is it some combination of verb and/or adverb and/or prepositional phrase? Is it an adverbial phrase? More generally, is "up-to-date" ever correct after the noun? Thanks again. AEF > 1.) He brought the book up to date. > 2.) The book was brought up to date. > 3.) The book is up to date. (Maybe this one needs "up-to-date" instead?) Except for compounds that dictionaries hyphenate,* the tendency is to hyphenate on the left and leave open on the right. There's nothing about "up to date" that wants hyphens when it appears on the right: He brought the book up to date. He brought the book up to Dale. He set the loss down to experience. He put the horse out to pasture. He rode the mule away to glory. He urged the army on to victory. He drove the bit through to paydirt. > More generally, is "up-to-date" ever correct after the noun? More generally, no, unless another noun comes along to put "up-to-date" back on the left: He brought the book, up-to-date reader that he was. *And even then, as with "well-known" (hyphenated in MWCD), the tendency often asserts itself, if a tendency can be said to do such a thing. > On 26 Dec 2006, AEF wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > earth wouldn't someone who writes "the service was family- > oriented" write "the wheel was sped-up"? Because they're different situations. "Family-oriented" is a compound adjective and "sped up" is a verb followed by an adverb used in normal sentence construction: article noun helping-verb (was) past-tense_verb adverb. > Whether the hyphen is or isn't appropriate might be arguable, but > the issue of consistency simply isn't negotiable.... What I'm trying to get at here it the subtle difference between compounds that require hyphenation only before the noun they modify and those that require it after and before. I can't think of any examples right now. Let me wander over to Mark's reply. > -- > Cheers, Harvey > > Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van AEF >> On 26 Dec 2006, AEF wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> -snip- [examples] I can imagine some ambiguities in the predicate use of "up(-)to(-)date" which might be prevented by the addition of hyphens: "the ledger was up to date" (entries in it reflected the latest developments in whatever the writer was keeping track of), and "the ledger was up-to-date" (it reflected modern tastes in all respects). But this is certainly not relevant to all cases. Maybe the only firm rule, at least for non-attributive uses, should be that hyphens are to be used when the writer judges them necessary to make the meaning of the sentence clear. > >> On 26 Dec 2006, AEF wrote > >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > be used when the writer judges them necessary to make the meaning of > the sentence clear. I agree that it must be left to a writer's discretion; and I won't necessarily accuse a writer of inconsistency if he does it differently in various contexts. I would, I think, usually write "The service was family-oriented" (if I didn't dislike the over-use of the "orient" family); but I wouldn't call the unhyphened version "wrong", or even necessarily "bad". I imagine that even some of those who say "up to date" must _not_ have hyphens when it comes after its noun would hesitate before writing "this ledger is more up to date": the hyphened form seems much easier to read. SignatureMike. >>>> On 26 Dec 2006, AEF wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > after its noun would hesitate before writing "this ledger is more > up to date": the hyphened form seems much easier to read. Agreed. I think the only legitimate criticism of punctuation style in general is, not "wrong", but "unclear". I blather on as a way of escaping my outbox. "Punctuational"? "Punctuative"? "Punctuous"? OK, let's see if that's enough. > >>>> On 26 Dec 2006, AEF wrote > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Agreed. I think the only legitimate criticism of punctuation style in > general is, not "wrong", but "unclear". sO you have ;;; no problem;; with this ---^^ sentence? It's clear, but it's wrong. > I blather on as a way of escaping my outbox. "Punctuational"? > "Punctuative"? "Punctuous"? OK, let's see if that's enough. > sO you have ;;; no problem;; with this ---^^ sentence? It's clear, but > it's wrong. A highly unlikely example, but "so you have no problem with this sentence its clear but its wrong" is exactly the sort of thing that turns up on web sites. SignatureRob Bannister > > sO you have ;;; no problem;; with this ---^^ sentence? It's clear, but > > it's wrong. > > A highly unlikely example, but "so you have no problem with this > sentence its clear but its wrong" is exactly the sort of thing that > turns up on web sites. And it just isn't the kind of thing Charles had in mind. It's preposterous to suggest that he was implying any such thing, and doesn't further the discussion. Within the rules we accept, variation is often possible: what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean you can use a minus sign instead of a question mark. And, within the rules we accept, that sentence certainly _wasn't_ clear: if it hadn't been an obvious reduction to absurdity for the sake of argument I'd have spent some time trying to work out the significance of the various marks, and quite likely have reached a wrong conclusion -- or given up. I'm reminded of those communications where somebody adds "LOL" or "<smile>", and I waste valuable time trying in vain to work out what's so funny, or _why_ they're smiling at me. SignatureMike. > doesn't further the discussion. Within the rules we accept, variation > is often possible: what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean you can use > a minus sign instead of a question mark. We often have long discussions here about using a hyphen instead of a minus sign, n-dash or m-dash. SignatureRob Bannister [mostly good advice] >> Agreed. I think the only legitimate criticism of punctuation >> style in general is, not "wrong", but "unclear". > > sO you have ;;; no problem;; with this ---^^ sentence? It's clear, > but it's wrong. It's clear that your sentence is an absurd example made up for rhetorical purposes: I have no problem with it in that sense. If I thought your unconventional* punctuativeness was intended to change the meaning of your words or to clarify them in some other way than the illustrative, I would in my puzzlement be forced to ask you what the hell you were on about (a form of criticism). I don't think the people you're arguing against now are really disagreeing with you. There is a painful sanction in this group called "the OY!" (wailie, wailie), which is sometimes applied to offenses against punctuatory convention; but there is also a recognition that the purpose of the exercise is the conveyance of meaning, and that to this end convention may legitimately be flouted. None of this means you shouldn't hammer your little charges into a healthy conformity if their minds are still malleable. If they're grownups, you might have to learn to live with your ulcer. _____________ *Hey, maybe that's the word: not wrong your honour; just a little unconventional. > None of this means you shouldn't hammer your little charges into a > healthy conformity if their minds are still malleable. I did like the hammer pun. SignatureRob Bannister >> None of this means you shouldn't hammer your little charges into a >> healthy conformity if their minds are still malleable. > > I did like the hammer pun. What, this old fallacy? > [mostly good advice] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's clear that your sentence is an absurd example made up for > rhetorical purposes: I have no problem with it in that sense. If I I was just exaggerating to be sure to be "clear". I guess I overdid it. I include some less absurd examples below. > thought your unconventional* punctuativeness was intended to change > the meaning of your words or to clarify them in some other way than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disagreeing with you. There is a painful sanction in this group > called "the OY!" (wailie, wailie), which is sometimes applied to OY? Wailie? Huh? > offenses against punctuatory convention; but there is also a > recognition that the purpose of the exercise is the conveyance of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > *Hey, maybe that's the word: not wrong your honour; just a little > unconventional. OK, some less absurd examples: I went home; and I found my watch. The hut is big. The statue is big; also. I went home one day to find a whole bunch of stuff, it was raining through a whole in the roof. In the 3rd example, I think most people would think use of a comma instead of a semicolon is "wrong", even though the meaning is clear. And spelling 'hole' as 'whole' is also wrong, yet the meaning could be discerned. Still, I consider them wrong and if I asked about it in this newsgroup I'd hope to get that answer. In the same sense I was asking about up-to-date after the noun because in one case it seemed to be used as an adjective following a "linking verb" (if I have that right) as in "That product is shrink-wrapped", but my skills aren't good enough to tell for sure -- so I asked. (Proper use of "--"? I don't know!) I realize that hyhpenation can vary for certain compund words and still be "acceptable", but I thought that things like "The up-to-date edition is now available" required the hyphens. I see many cases where hyphens are used and I notice that it definitely makes the sentence easier to read, even if the meaning can still be discerned without their use. In some cases the hyhpens are absolutely necessary to convey the correct meaning as in recover vs. re-cover, recreate vs. re-create, two carbon groups vs. two-carbon groups. So maybe instead of "proper usage" I should be concerned with "good usage". It seems to come up more often in science and technology. For example, "Other pairs of such mirror-image compounds...". Would anyone here recommend omitting the hyphen? Then there's the awful-sounding stuff like "have did" and "had went". The meaning is clear, but boy does it sound awful! AEF [mostly good advice] >>>> Agreed. I think the only legitimate criticism of punctuation >>>> style in general is, not "wrong", but "unclear". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I was just exaggerating to be sure to be "clear". I guess I overdid > it. I include some less absurd examples below. [...] >> I don't think the people you're arguing against now are really >> disagreeing with you. There is a painful sanction in this group >> called "the OY!" (wailie, wailie), which is sometimes applied to > > OY? Wailie? Huh? The first, a cry of reproof; the second, one of dismay, commonly used by the Wee Free Men in the works of T. Pratchett. [...] > OK, some less absurd examples: > > I went home; and I found my watch. I would use this if I wanted to make a clear separation between the clauses, likely in order to put emphasis on the second one for some reason, and as an alternative to making it a separate sentence beginning with "And". > The hut is big. The statue is big; also. > I went home one day to find a whole bunch of stuff, it was raining > through a whole in the roof. A fair cop. But I would argue that, in these cases, an unconventional use of punctuation or spelling reduces ease of comprehension and exposes the writer to comment. > In the 3rd example, I think most people would think use of a comma > instead of a semicolon is "wrong", even though the meaning is clear. > And spelling 'hole' as 'whole' is also wrong, yet the meaning could > be discerned. Yes, but there is a certain spread between reduced clarity and complete incomprehensibility. > Still, I consider them wrong and if I asked about it > in this newsgroup I'd hope to get that answer. In the same sense I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > skills aren't good enough to tell for sure -- so I asked. (Proper > use of "--"? I don't know!) I would certainly write "shrink-wrapped". > I realize that hyhpenation can vary for certain compound words and > still be "acceptable", but I thought that things like "The > up-to-date edition is now available" required the hyphens. I don't think anyone here would disagree. > I see > many cases where hyphens are used and I notice that it definitely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > concerned with "good usage". It seems to come up more often in > science and technology. Good usage is clearer than poor usage. That's most of what I was saying. > For example, "Other pairs of such mirror-image compounds...". Would > anyone here recommend omitting the hyphen? Not I. Or, what's an image compound for? > Then there's the awful-sounding stuff like "have did" and "had > went". The meaning is clear, but boy does it sound awful! Certainly there are still many cases in which there is a strong consensus of competent speakers that one form is acceptable in standard English and another is not. The application of convention and clarity as criteria would be for cases where there is no such consensus. Looking back at your OP, I see that you summed it up: "And, in general, when do you hyphenate a compound modifier that occurs after the noun it modifies?" You attributed your uncertainty to a lack of knowledge; I think it arises from the fact that there are no clear or undisputed prescriptions to enforce. The rule for me in such cases is to add punctuation when it will help to make the meaning of the words clearer. > [mostly good advice] > >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > use of punctuation or spelling reduces ease of comprehension and > exposes the writer to comment. OK, unconventional! There *is* some standard. It is not absolute, and its "strictness" varies with the case. That's all I was trying to say. Above when you wrote > >>>> Agreed. I think the only legitimate criticism of punctuation > >>>> style in general is, not "wrong", but "unclear". I took that quite literally to mean that all that matters is clarity. While the hyphenation of many compounds does indeed vary, other uses of punctuation do not. You don't use commas where apostrophes are needed, for example. That's a pretty hard and fast rule. Mark Brader's answer was what I was looking for. In general -- I think most of us can agree -- ceratin compounds like "well known" are hyphenated when they appear to the right of the noun they modify and are not when the appear to the right. But that doesn't cover all possible compounds! While it was clear to me that in most cases, "up to date" should be hyphenated when on the left, but not on the right, it appeared to me that there might be a case when it appears on the right when it is acting more like the always-hyphenated compounds because of its grammatical role in the sentence. I guess that's not the case after reading Mark's and others' replies (though I have to think about the "This report is now more up-to-date" example some more). (Thank you helpful responders!) So that's what I was asking and why. > > In the 3rd example, I think most people would think use of a comma > > instead of a semicolon is "wrong", even though the meaning is clear. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, but there is a certain spread between reduced clarity and > complete incomprehensibility. I think its much closer to clear than incomprehensible. I think it's quite clear, but the "errors" act as speed bumps for the reader. Sometimes there are variant spellings of the same word, in which case I'd like to see them instead of being told "as long as it's clear it's okay". > > Still, I consider them wrong and if I asked about it > > in this newsgroup I'd hope to get that answer. In the same sense I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would certainly write "shrink-wrapped". Acknowledged. > > I realize that hyhpenation can vary for certain compound words and > > still be "acceptable", but I thought that things like "The > > up-to-date edition is now available" required the hyphens. > > I don't think anyone here would disagree. Then it's more than just clarity, no? > > I see > > many cases where hyphens are used and I notice that it definitely [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Good usage is clearer than poor usage. That's most of what I was > saying. I thought you were saying that as long as the meaning is clear, it's not "wrong". Well, I consider using commas where apostrophes should be used wrong. That's the "wrong" I was alluding to. > > For example, "Other pairs of such mirror-image compounds...". Would > > anyone here recommend omitting the hyphen? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to add punctuation when it will help to make the meaning of the words > clearer. I think sometimes it's quite clear when hyphens should be used. I now see that there is more variation allowed than I previously thought, but I don't see it as a free-for-all. Thanks for your thoughts. AEF > My apologies for my ignorance on this matter, but I'm puzzled on when > to hypenate adjectives when they occur after the noun they modify. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think of it as each word being a normal part of the flow of the > sentence. Yes. > The up-to-date version of the book is now on sale. OK -- hyphens, as > it is a compound modifier placed before the noun it modifies. Yes. > It is up to date. Hmmm... hyphens or not? No. > The book is up to date. Hyphens or not? No. > And, in general, when do you hyphenate a compound modifier that occurs > after the noun it modifies? No. Never. > Thanks! > > AEF |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.