 |
 | 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 2004"commonly used" or "commonly-used"?
I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the following sentences: 'The term "birding" is of American origin; "birdwatching" is the commonly-used word in Great Britain and Ireland and by non-birders in the United States.' 'The term "birding" is of American origin; "birdwatching" is the commonly used word in Great Britain and Ireland and by non-birders in the United States.' Any thoughts? Any pondiality here?  SignatureJerry Friedman > I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Any thoughts? Any pondiality here? There's a -- to me -- obscure rule I never heard of until I participated here, which scornfully states that no one with an ounce of sense would put a hyphen after an adverb ending in "ly." A "half-eaten apple" is OK, but a "partly-eaten apple" is a no-no. Well, you can see I can't be neutral about such absurdity. I hunted a bit and found that it is in a couple of the style guides, and it's not pondial. But it's not in all of them, and, like the song says, that style guide was made for you and me. If you and your friend are actually collaborating on something for publication, you could defer to them just because the rule they heard does exist, and you've got to get on with it. But let's put those hyphens in whatever other writing we can! SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > > following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > couple of the style guides, and it's not pondial. But it's not in all of > them, and, like the song says, that style guide was made for you and me. I certainly don't see any advantage to the hyphen; the sentence is just as clear without it. "Commonly-used" doesn't feel like one word to me, though apparently it does to Adrian Bailey or some people he knows. > If you and your friend are actually collaborating on something for > publication, you could defer to them just because the rule they heard > does exist, and you've got to get on with it. But let's put those > hyphens in whatever other writing we can! Jump back from those conclusions! This is for Wikipedia (I don't know whether that counts as "publication"), I'd never heard of the person before he edited the article, and he put the hyphen in--I was considering removing it. However, there's little enough consensus, and Wikipedia contains so many blatant errors that I'm not going to bother with this one. You're allowed to edit what and how you want at Wikipedia, but some things are frowned upon, and one is changing British to American usage or vice-versa. That's why I asked about pondiality. By the way, I've been wasting a lot of time at Wikipedia, and many aue-ers might enjoy it too. You actually get to correct errors! And you don't need to sign up or anything, though it's encouraged. Of course, people can correct your corrections... SignatureJerry Friedman > There's a -- to me -- obscure rule I never heard of until I participated > here, which scornfully states that no one with an ounce of sense would > put a hyphen after an adverb ending in "ly." A "half-eaten apple" is OK, > but a "partly-eaten apple" is a no-no. This is common sense. "Half-eaten" needs a hyphen because "half" is not normally an adverb, so "half-eaten" is a compound. "Partly", however, is an adverb. -- Mike Hardy >> There's a -- to me -- obscure rule I never heard of until I participated >> here, which scornfully states that no one with an ounce of sense would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "half" is not normally an adverb, so "half-eaten" is a compound. > "Partly", however, is an adverb. At the moment it seems to me that the real rule doesn't depend on whether the adverb ends in "-ly", but rather on whether the adjective is actually a verb form. That is, "half-eaten apple" and "partly-eaten apple" both look right to me, but "partly green apple". -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Jerry wrote: >I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not >in the following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Any thoughts? Any pondiality here? In America, adverbs ending in <-ly> don't take hyphens. The Chicago Manual of style says their compounds, as in (its example) <highly developed species>, are "always open." As for people who aren't birders, the word isn't in my MWCD9, but the pattern of nonned two-syllable <-er> words that _are_ there---<nondriver, nonfarmer, nonlawyer, nonskater, nonspeaker, nonstarter, nonworker>---shows that <nonbirders> is what you want. > Jerry wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > there---<nondriver, nonfarmer, nonlawyer, nonskater, nonspeaker, nonstarter, > nonworker>---shows that <nonbirders> is what you want. CMoS? Yet another reason for me to oppose that religion. I understand CMoS was devised by the University of Chicago as instructions for its dissertation candidates to follow if they wished publication. There are other US publications style guides. In my school days, we were frequently referred to one put about by Modern Language Association. I don't consider them appropriate for anyone who is writing informally and _not_ for publication, i.e. on this newsgroup. In our last episode, <96efe132.0401080914.3a7503d3@posting.google.com>, the lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast on alt.usage.english: > I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > following sentences: > 'The term "birding" is of American origin; "birdwatching" is the > commonly-used word in Great Britain and Ireland and by non-birders in > the United States.' > 'The term "birding" is of American origin; "birdwatching" is the > commonly used word in Great Britain and Ireland and by non-birders in > the United States.' > Any thoughts? Any pondiality here? Adverb in -ly + past participle *never* takes the hyphen. SignatureLars Eighner -finger for geek code- eighner@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/ There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. People should be very free with sex, they should draw the line at goats. --Elton John jerry_friedman@yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman) wrote on 09 Jan 2004: > I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Any thoughts? Any pondiality here? I don't think the hyphen is necessary and my editor-self wouldn't add it to the second sentence. [American English] SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Any thoughts? Any pondiality here? If the first of two determiners applies to the second one, rather than to the noun, they are hyphenated to show this. Hence we write "green-eyed man" because it's the eyes that are green, not the man. The hyphenation is not necessary if there is no risk of ambiguity. Hence we can write "commonly used word" because "commonly" (unlike adverbs which double as adjectives, such as "well", "ill") cannot stand alone before a noun. That's one point of view. The other is that "commonly-used" and "green-eyed" are spoken (and perhaps thought of) as if they are single words; hence they should be hyphenated. As far as punctuation decisions go, it's finely balanced. Adrian >I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the >following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >commonly used word in Great Britain and Ireland and by non-birders in >the United States.' The former is better. the commonly-used word BUT the word is commonly used to mean twitching.... SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > >following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > the word is commonly used to mean twitching.... Oh, absolutely, I think all of us would agree that you wouldn't connect an adverb to a verb with a hyphen in such a sentence. But just to be clear, the rule under discussion isn't talking about that. This rule, which is in some style manuals, forbids the hyphen in your *first* example -- "the commonly-used word," "the partly-eaten apple," "the newly-found planet." The hyphens look fine to *me*. Somebody people will look back on such a silly rule with the amazement that is now used for bans on split infinitives and sentences ending with prepositions. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Donna Richoux filted: >Somebody people will look back on such a silly rule with the amazement >that is now used for bans on split infinitives and sentences ending with >prepositions. Ordinarily I'd just chalk it up to thinko and let it go, but that "somebody" really caught me this time...I haven't put my contact lenses in yet, and I actually read it as "somehody" and was on the verge of congratulating you for a clever coinage (and suggesting that "somehodie" would be a better spelling)....r > Donna Richoux filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > congratulating you for a clever coinage (and suggesting that "somehodie" > would be a better spelling)....r Somebody I'll slow down and reread my posts before posting. > But just to be clear, the rule under discussion isn't talking about > that. This rule, which is in some style manuals, forbids the hyphen in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that is now used for bans on split infinitives and sentences ending with > prepositions. Donna, the rule makes sense and has a very obvious rationale. This is the second time you've posted something I disagreed with in this forum. Now I'm predicting you'll post an error every five years or so. -- Mike Hardy > > But just to be clear, the rule under discussion isn't talking about > > that. This rule, which is in some style manuals, forbids the hyphen in > > your *first* example -- "the commonly-used word," "the partly-eaten > > apple," "the newly-found planet." The hyphens look fine to *me*. > > > > Somebody [that error already noted] > people will look back on such a silly rule with the amazement > > that is now used for bans on split infinitives and sentences ending with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in this forum. Now I'm predicting you'll post an error every five > years or so. -- Mike Hardy Thank you kindly for the implied compliment. Did you post the rationale for the rule? Perhaps you can convince me that it actually makes sense, and is not bizarrely arbitrary. I don't see how it aids one bit in clarity or reader comprehension. To me it's as absurd as suddenly being told you can't use a word that ends in -ance if you're talking about agriculture. What? If your only reason is, well, the hyphen isn't needed, I'm sorry, that's not going to be good enough. I'll explain why, if that's the case. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> > But just to be clear, the rule under discussion isn't talking about >> > that. This rule, which is in some style manuals, forbids the hyphen in >> > your *first* example -- "the commonly-used word," "the partly-eaten >> > apple," "the newly-found planet." The hyphens look fine to *me*. >> > Somebody >[that error already noted] >> people will look back on such a silly rule with the amazement >> > that is now used for bans on split infinitives and sentences ending with >> > prepositions. >> Donna, the rule makes sense and has a very obvious rationale. >> This is the second time you've posted something I disagreed with >> in this forum. Now I'm predicting you'll post an error every five >> years or so. -- Mike Hardy >Thank you kindly for the implied compliment. >Did you post the rationale for the rule? Perhaps you can convince me >that it actually makes sense, and is not bizarrely arbitrary. I don't >see how it aids one bit in clarity or reader comprehension. >To me it's as absurd as suddenly being told you can't use a word that >ends in -ance if you're talking about agriculture. What? >If your only reason is, well, the hyphen isn't needed, I'm sorry, that's >not going to be good enough. I'll explain why, if that's the case. This seems to me to be a result of applying the minimalist esthetic of mathematics to language, where it doesn't apply. The fact that a hyphen might not be absolutely necessary does not mean that it should be forbidden. On the contrary, redundancy is a feature of language, not a bug. And in particular, written language needs all the redundancy it can get, since it doesn't represent most of the important features of real language. Who says there has to be only one way to do anything in written English? By all means, continue to hyphenate those uncommonly-encountered adverbs, if you prefer to! -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays - Kipling, And--every--single--one--of--them--is--right!" 'In the Neolithic Age' >> >I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the >> >following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >that is now used for bans on split infinitives and sentences ending with >prepositions. It's a new one on me. I see somebody found it in Chicago, and I must be unusually unobservant, because for several years I referred to Chicgo frequently, and never noticed that one. And I looked it up, because we had a lot of Afrikaans-speaking language police in our department who insisted that everything must be "consequent" (consistent) and therefore demanded that in our house style we should either have a hyphen or no hyphen, and stick to one or the other.; SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > >I'm disagreeing with someone about the hyphen in or not in the > >following sentences: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > the word is commonly used to mean twitching.... Which touches the nub, I think. (I've just got back from a long journey, so please indulge me if my brain hasn't got back into proper order, and I later regret what follows.) In our sentence we could have put "the word commonly used", so we may hyphen or not as we choose (left to myself, I would; but I wouldn't go to the stake for it). But in "the green-eyed monster" we wouldn't in normal prose put "*the monster green eyed", so we must hyphen. I think I do it by feel, I'm afraid: I don't think the presence or absence of a "-ly" is a reliable guide. As I've moaned before, modern design rather dislikes punctuation marks (why not "punctuation-marks"?) other than full-stops and commas; so hyphens are being discarded from places where I'd want to put them. Mike. |
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.