Talk:Hyphen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is an important question missing. When a hyphen is used as a subsitute for the word "to", how ill it be used? I assume that as the hyphen represents the word "to" the sentence "10 to 12" would equal "10 - 12" with spaces in between.

A hyphen should never be used that way. Use an en dash, with no spaces. Dicklyon 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper Style Hyphenation I was just wondering. A friend of mine told me that in Spanish, 'newspaper style' hyphenation can only occur between sylables. Does a similar rule apply in Eng-
lish?fetmar

I have altered the hyphenation section which deals with the SI authorities and their desire to limit hyphenation regarding the metric system in the English language. Since they aren't English language authorities, they are irrelevent. Slamlander

Deleted "Most writers who are obstreperous about other things are compliant when editors tell them to hyphenate compounds," because it is conjecture. Also, this sentence is a joke. Myc2001 16:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The current example of an adjective-adjective compound adjective (heh heh) is no good: truly remarkable progress. But truly is an adverb. I have removed the example but don't have a replacement in mind.

What about something like two colors; e.g., the blue-green sea? Derobert 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nouns formed of a noun and an adjective are frequently hyphenated, as death-wish - which of those is the adjective? They both look like nouns to me. -- Zoe

I agree. Maybe if I get my thoughts on this collected, I'll work on it. Michael Hardy 00:58 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

This is a very well-written article. It contains an excellent exposition of the vagaries of hyphenation. However, I'd like to suggest some reworking of this article to reduce what appears to be some degree of bias. It seems to me that the content of this article falls into two categories: (1) an excellent description of the grammatically correct ('proper') usage of hyphens, with a variety of helpful examples, and (2) opinion on 'improper' (that is, grammatically incorrect) hyphenation in present-day writing.

As English is a living, evolving language, a discussion of the historical and current usage of hyphens is an interesting and relevant addition to the article, however the content from the current version of the article that might fall into this category seems to be biased towards so-called 'proper' hyphenation. I can't pretend to be an expert in such things, but this seems to be at odds with the present-day usage of hyphens, which appears to tend more to convention than to hard-and-fast rules. For example, "chocolate ice cream" is typically written without the hyphen, perhaps because it is assumed that everybody knows we are talking about a frozen, dairy-based dessert with a chocolate flavour, rather than cream containing some form of chocolate ice? This assumption does not seem to be entirely unreasonable.

"Chocolate ice cream" is an open compound noun (ice cream) and an adjective (chocolate). If it were cream made of chocolate ice, like you said, it would most certainly be hyphenated, but since it is "ice cream" of the chocolate variety, no hyphen is necessary. Some of the same issues come to play here that are often seen in the difference between commas use with cumulative and cooridiante adjectives; we can be fairly sure that "ice" is not properly an adjective because one would not say "ice chocoalte cream."

It does seem like a good idea to make a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive rules for hyphens--Smallwhitelight 21:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest approach is to begin by dividing the current version of the article into two sections: (1) a description of grammatically correct hyphenation, and (2) a description of the current usage of hyphens, and more generally, the history of the humble hyphen. Might that make it clearer where, exactly, the article may need to have its neutrality improved?

--Ben Cairns 04:35 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In my experience, hyphenated words in English are often an intermediate step in the evolution of a compound word, eg "web site" to "web-site" to "website", so the correct form really depends on how far along the word is. That's why hyphenated words can make a text look old-timey. 207.229.185.50 09:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the list of proper usage examples (the one that currently begins "text-only...") be wikified? -Smack 02:31, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the "and" in multidigit numbers, I've always understood that it should only be used to mean a decimal point, as in "one hundred twenty-three and four tenths" for "123.4", but I don't know if that's British or American usage, or even if it's still applicable. 207.229.185.50 09:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Double hyphen

An edition of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary that was published in the early 80s (I think) contained a punctuation guide which described the "double hyphen," something I've never seen described or even mentioned anywhere else. The glyph looked like a shortened equals sign, slightly tilted so it ran southwest-northeast. It was to be used when a hyphenated word needed to be broken at the end of the line at the hyphen (like "present-day," with "day" starting a new line).

Has anyone else ever heard of such a beast? Would it be worthy of adding to this article? --TobyRush 15:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but something like that would be useful when a URL is presented in printed text, especially in a newspaper or magazine with narrow columns. Some URLs contain hyphens, so the necessity of breaking a URL between two lines creates ambiguity if a hyphen is inserted. JamesMLane 07:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I have written a short article about it at double hyphen. -- Naive cynic 17:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Naive cynic... very nice article. It's comforting when something you thought only you cared about is expounded upon by someone else! --TobyRush 16:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Potential confusion example

This is the example I like to use in class:

  • A Canadian football player might play in the NFL (or play soccer).
  • A Canadian-football player might be from America.

Mwalcoff 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I CAN'T CONVINCE MY FRIEND THAT HE CAN'T WRITE "OVER-WHELMING." Help me.

[edit] hyphenating "non-," "un-," etc.

I'd like to see a discussion of whether "non-" and such should be hyphenated. The article happens to use a hyphenated "non-", when it refers to the "non-breaking hyphen." I know some people who say you shouldn't hyphenate these things because prefixes like "non-" and "un-" aren't words themselves. Does it make sense to hyphenate "non-breaking," but not "nonsense?" Why? As a reader, I would be annoyed and distracted by both "nonbreaking" and "non-sense," but I don't know if that's a clear and universal distinction.--Bcrowell 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

--72.57.52.146 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)== "Choose from one- to three-night stays" ==

I can't seem to locate a relevant example on the wiki page; is this the proper use of a two 'preceding' words followed by hyphens with the second word being followed by the 'modifying' word?

Johngunter 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC) John

I think so. Michael Hardy 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article was uSEFUL

lIKE THE HAED LINE SAYS, i USED THIS FOR AN ARTICLE IN THE SCHOL NEWSPAPER AND IT HELPED A LOT1

[edit] Hyphenation with extra words

Is it correct to hyphenate as follows (when referring to candy that tastes like ice cream): "ice cream-flavored candy"? Thanks in advance.--GregRM 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (in British English at least), it should be ice-cream-flavored candy - can't speak for US English. Dave.Dunford 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--GregRM 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section on word splits

does anyone think a general overview of word splits should be given under 'examples of usage'? it seems appropriate to me, given that it is one of the uses of hyphens... 202.156.6.54 12:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-section

I've tagged the rules for usage section as POV, because it states that certain forms of usage simply are correct, without citation of sources or grammatical references. What we need to do is cite a style guide as a source, otherwise we're just pulling these things out of our ass. Also, a statement like "When dealing with complex words the issue of ease of reading should be uppermost in the author's mind." is irredemably POV and needs to be excised. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there some other POV that this one contrasts with? Or is your objection purely theoretical? Dicklyon 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying "murder is bad" may not get much opposition, but it's still POV. The current phrasing violates NPOV and OR policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how "When dealing with complex words the issue of ease of reading should be uppermost in the author's mind" is POV. You will find this kind of common-sense statement in the introduction to many style guides and language reference books. However, "in the author's mind" seems fussy and unnecessary, so I have removed it.--Shantavira 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed it further, to not be prescriptive of what a writer should do, but descriptive of the intent and what editors will allow. And I took out the POV tag. See if you think it's OK this way. Dicklyon 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, it's OK for the author of a style manual to have a POV and express it. If you want that here, it would be best to quote and cite one of those, since prescriptive and POV statements are not encyclopedic. Dicklyon 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Is this on purpose?

The following is a quote from the main page:

  • state-of-the-art product or …product is state-of-the-art (product is an advanced state does not contain hyphens)

Is there a reason this is contradicted at the end of the sentence? --Thaddius 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a confusing section. A state-of-the-art product is a product that has advances representing the current state of the art. Saying a product is state-of-the-art is just moving the adjective phrase to the end. This sort of example is not parallel with some of the others. It's a mess. Dicklyon 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenating lengths/heights

I have searched style manuals and have, on occasion, found reference to hyphenating lengths and heights. Oddly, I cannot find a reference for it at this time, but I do recall that at least one was a specialized style manual, such as a MT manual (specifically for medical transcription). What is the general convention, particularly for common English prose? I am referring to a sentence such as: "He was a man of about six-foot two inches..." or "Just five-foot-two, he was of small frame and stature...." or "A six-foot-six-inch athlete,...."

[edit] Detroit-based and web-based

These are used as examples of proper usage, but I believe these violate the guideline that says "Hyphens are generally not used in noun-noun or adverb-adjective compound modifiers when no such confusion is possible" Comments?

I don't think based is a noun here, but confusion is possible, e.g. between "Foobar is a web based on its connectivity" versus "Foobar is a web based application". The latter should have a hyphen to prevent the possibility of garden-path interpretation as the first. Dicklyon 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a Rule for "one woman" vs. "two-women"?

If so, can someone direct me to it - within WP of course! If not, can someone write an WP Article for it? Yours, etc. Ludvikus 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Don't say "two-women". If used as an adjective, use a hyphen, as in "two-woman show"; otherwise don't. Dicklyon 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

I don't think twentieth-century invention, cold-hearted person, and award-winning show are particularly good examples, as there's little chance of genuine confusion (what's a "century invention"?) But I struggled to think of better ones - American-football player maybe (as suggested by Mwalcoff above). Dave.Dunford 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De-, pre-, etc.

Notable exceptions to this are where the prefix is "de", "pro", "pre", or "re", as in "deemphasis" and "preemptive". (See also the use of the prefix "co" below.)

I'd argue with this. British usage would (probably) still hyphenate here. Deemphasis would generally be hyphenated (de-emphasis) in British English. Dave.Dunford

[edit] Diacritic?

Why is this included among the "symbols sometimes used as a diacritic"? Can anyone given an example of a hyphen that's used as a diacritic? FilipeS 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

The remarks in parentheses following a couple of the examples didn't make any sense to me so I looked at the edit history. An anonymous user changed all the examples from, e.g.

"text-only document" or "...document is text-only"

to

"text-only document" or "...document that is only in text"

making some of the parenthetical remarks make no sense, and also defeating the original purpose... the different phrasings were meant to show that an adjective that has a hyphen when used before a noun also has a hyphen when used in a "to be" sentence. I don't think people need an explanation of what "text-only document" means, which is all the current version provides (clumsily, even).

Ah, I just noticed that there are comments about this above. The old version was

"state-of-the-art product" or "...product is state-of-the-art" (but "The state of the art is very advanced." with no hyphen)

and it was changed to

"state-of-the-art product" or "...product is state-of-the-art" ("product is an advanced state" does not contain hyphens)

the original parenthetical remark noting that the noun phrase "state of the art" doesn't need hyphenating.

The thing is, these edits were made back in June 2006, and have been left this way since then. So I just wanted to see what people think before I revert this section back to the old one. --Galaxiaad 06:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm either way. The annon used the same principal as was started within the section: "disease-causing poor nutrition, meaning poor nutrition that causes disease". You will notice that the definition does not contain a hyphenated word. This is by design. The additional examples use "or" instead of "meaning" but should work the same way, however I do not see the meaning of hyphenated words as something very difficult to figure out. A possessive noun ("John's chair") only needs to be described once as "the chair belonging to John" instead of every time as possessive noun appears. I may remove the definitions of the additionals and see how that works. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The examples in the original version, which I changed it back to, are meant to show that the adjectives ("text-only", etc.) are hyphenated whether they come directly before a noun or after a noun + copula (form of "to be"). So it does serve a more useful purpose than the silly explanations of what each means. --Galaxiaad 03:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But note, FWIW, that I've added an example showing that for many more common expressions the question whether to hyphenate or not does depend on location (before the noun being modified vs. in the predicate).—PaulTanenbaum 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing or conflicting statements

The sentences "Its use is almost always avoided by those who write for newspapers...However, it is still used in most (American) newspapers and magazines," seem to be saying two completely opposite things. Can someone please clarify? Benstrider 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st order

how about it, how to write it? which version is correct?

  • 1st-order
  • 1st order
  • 1st order
  • 1st-order

I mean in the scientific text, not in Wikipedia. --84.234.42.68 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the context, i.e. whether "1st order" is a noun phrase or and adjective phrase. Example: He was a member of the 1st order of a brotherhood of 1st-order logicians. Markus Kuhn 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I mean sth like this "the model is described by 1st order transfer function", and is there any diference between American and British English in this case? --84.234.42.68 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your example should be rendered as "the model is described by 1st-order transfer function." This avoids possible ambiguity—did the author mean that there are several things called order transfer functions and that the first of these describes the model?—PaulTanenbaum 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your advice, but those who will read that should now anyway, the next question i have is why the part "st" is sometimes indexed, which variant is more common or whats the difference between the 1st and 1st? --84.234.42.68 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dash...

"A hyphen ( -, or dash ) is a punctuation mark. It is used both to join words and to separate syllables. It is often confused with a dash ( –, —, ― ), which is longer and has a different function. "
Am I the only one confused by that? Why does it refer to a hyphen as a dash, and then say it's often confused with a dash? --Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 07:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Isn't a hyphen just a type of dash? Like Ale is a type of beer? Surly they are the same thing the only difference is their use in context as punctuation or as information... Perhaps their typography is different too? --Hm2k (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compass points

Can someone please explain the correct use of the hyphen in compass points? When searching for an article on the North-West Highlands of Scotland, I was redirected to Northwest Highlands. However, on searching AskOxford.com for an authoritative answer, I could only get definition results for north-west (in both UK and US views). I can't see any reference to this in Wiki's MoS, so is it a US/UK thing or is it just a simple alternative spelling, with both hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms being acceptable? Chris 42 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adverbs

The article doesn't seem to cover this, so I thought I'd ask here:

In the case of adverb-adjective combinations, I've read that it's appropriate to hyphenate only if the adverb doesn't end in '-ly'. So one would say "a well-dressed woman" but not "a neatly-dressed woman". It seems to me that the first looks odd without the hyphen . . . but I'm not sure. Are there special rules based on the ending of the adverb?

Please see User:David_Kernow/Internet_sources_re_hyphens_and_adverbs. -- Wavelength 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does cover it, under "Customs of usage". The issue isn't whether the modifier ends in -ly but whether the hyphen is necessary to avert confusion. These usually turn out to be the same, however. In an example used in the article, wholly owned subsidiary, there's no need for a hyphen because "wholly" is never anything but an adverb and couldn't modify "subsidiary". In your example, "well" is sometimes an adverb and sometimes an adjective, so the hyphen is appropriate. Thus, a well-dressed woman is a woman who's dressed well; a well dressed woman is a woman who's neither unhealthy nor naked. This analysis seems to be consistent with the sources collected by Wavelength. JamesMLane t c 22:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emails

(Or, indeed, e-mails!) A large number, perhaps even the majority, of my friends use the hyphen in emails as a sort of general-purpose punctuation marker. (For example: "I'll be home tomorrow - it's exciting!") I'm surprised this usage isn't mentioned here. Whether it's "correct" or not is irrelevant: it's common, and should therefore be mentioned. 86.132.140.178 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That's not a hyphen, it's a dash (or should be anyway). The article does already say that dashes and hyphens shouldn't be confused, and I also added a note to the computing section to mention that hyphens are often used when properly dashes are required.

Just because it's used in an email shouldn't make a difference. The usage of a dash is the same no matter if it's written electronically or manually.AleXd (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role: to prevent confusion

These rules and exceptions are generally subject to a writer's judgment and may be applied differently to avoid confusion. The Times Online Style Guide suggests using the hyphen "when the phrase would otherwise be ambiguous."

Also, the purpose of grammar is to make communication clearer. If an alleged rule of grammar doesn't make communication clearer -- whether it be this always-use-the-hyphen rule or don't split infinitives -- it's not a rule worth following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipley (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)