Rantings of a sub-editor

May 11, 2011

Style guide: hyphens and dashes

Filed under: hyphens — substuff @ 10:24 am
Tags: , ,

Just a warning: I will have serious concerns about the sanity of anyone who responds to this post. I shall take it as a sign that you’re either utterly depraved or a masochist of the worst kind. Or perhaps that you’re procrastinating and trying to avoid something even worse – that would be the most understandable excuse.

Here – dah dah dahhhh – is an entry I have written for the new Which? style guide. And when I say new, I mean new. For the year that I’ve been working here, the general style guide situation has been “well we used to have one, and it’s still online, but you probably shouldn’t use it as it’s out of date and we’re making a new one but you can’t really use that either yet”. Which is to say, we haven’t really had one.

Of course, I haven’t spent the past 11 months grumbling about that *at all*.

Anyway, the style guide is now happening. I will not live to see it (okay, okay, I’ll hopefully live to see it, but I won’t be in the office to see it), but it is at least in progress.

What my grumbling has earned me, however, is the dubious honour of being asked to write a few bits for it. It’s quite tricky, as our writers are not, primarily, writers. They’re titled “researchers”, and indeed, research is the bulk of what they do. As a result, the level of language awareness varies greatly.

And that is a very longwinded way of saying… do you think the tone of this is too basic/patronising? It’s here: Hyphens and dashes.

VERY EXCITING UPDATE: Following the comments by Freelance Unbound, Andrew and Rory (below), there has been a REVOLUTION on the subs’ desk. Kind of. We are simplifying our style on login and setup. So now, log in and set up as verbs, and login and setup for all other purposes. Sorted.

August 3, 2010

A sorely-needed correction

Filed under: compound adjectives,grammar,hyphens — substuff @ 7:35 pm
Tags: , ,

I would like to point out to my esteemed colleagues the following: if it ends in ‘ly’, you don’t need to hyphenate it. Simple.

Or, in sub-editor speak, only hyphenate a compound adjective if it is formed of two adjectives – not an adverb (ending in ‘ly’) followed by an adjective.

Journos at other publications, if they get it wrong, tend to omit the hyphen altogether – compound adjective or not. This is fine by me. I am quite happy to put the hyphens in. You could even say, if you were feeling daring, that I enjoy putting them in.

At Which?, however, there are hyphens all over the place. Meticulously, I un-hyphenate “highly-sensitive touchscreen”, “fairly-decent battery life” and “lightly-textured bread”. Unlike putting the hyphens in, this doesn’t make me smile with a gently smug beneficence. On the contrary, it provokes a lemon-sucking expression.

But what makes me really mad, what takes that lemon-sucking face and cranks up the sourness with a bulldog and a wasp, is when, after I’ve taken out these nonsense hyphens, a proof comes back to me with them all marked in again. Seriously? OMG, as they say. I can only imagine that at some point, some well-meaning person has run a short grammar course and the subject of compound adjectives has come up. And either that person taught it wrong, or they explained it really badly. Either way, it has spread like a disease and now hyphens are everywhere. Soon they’ll be taking our-jobs, our-women and eventually-even-our (yes, Mr Gibson, fallen from grace as you are) freedom.

Now here’s the science. Hyphens are not just decorative. They are not there simply because subs like them (although I’ll admit that I do). They have not been left out because the sub didn’t attend that grammar course you vaguely remember. They are there for one simple reason: to aid clarity. This is the difference between adjective+adjective+noun and adverb+adjective+noun. The former can often easily be misread. The latter can’t. So if adding a hyphen doesn’t add clarity, don’t add it.

For example:

He’s a thick skinned man. This could just about be read to mean a stupid man who has been skinned. So hyphenate it: a thick-skinned man.

He’s an easily offended man. This can’t be misread. The adverb ‘easily’ can only apply to the adjective that follows it. Don’t hyphenate it.

A sweet smelling loaf. What’s a ‘smelling loaf’ when it’s at home? I don’t know, but it sure is sweet! Hyphenate.

An ominously dark sky. Don’t.

Finally, just because it’s too good not to be repeated:

February 17, 2010

Chief sub: on hyphens

Filed under: cartoons,hyphens — substuff @ 9:31 am
Tags: ,

“It’s one of those small joys in life, the difference in meaning a tiny little hyphen can make. Kind of proof of the divine.”

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers