Is it possible to construct the following sentence so as to give three distinct and separate meanings without changing the wording? The sentence is, “Twenty two dollar bills weigh as much as a silver dollar.”
Yes. Twenty-two dollar bills, twenty two-dollar bills, and twenty-two-dollar bills (though there is no bill issued for $22).
Please explain the correct manner of compounding the following adjectives: “Life-insurance company,” “fire insurance company,” “tornado insurance company.” I am under the impression that they should be used as written above, for this simple reason, namely: In the first instance it is possible to place an insurance upon your life, and therefore the two adjectives adhere and become compound. In the latter two cases it is different—you do not place insurance upon fire or tornado, but you insure against them, and you do not insure against life; therefore, in the last two instances, the two adjectives do not adhere directly and should not be used as compound adjectives. I would also like to inquire further, if either of the above is incorporated in the full name of an organization, should they in any such case be compounded?
If compounding occurs in any of the terms, it should in all, as they are exactly alike grammatically. Difference of meaning in the understood prepositions should not affect the forms. No compounding is really necessary, although the terms are compounds etymologically. If we tried to compound every term that could be reasonably joined in form no dividing line would ever be reached. Usage, especially in the names of corporations, is against compounding in these cases.
A large book is now in press (about 150 pages having been electrotyped). Throughout these pages the apostrophe and additional s were used in names ending with s, viz., Lewis’s, Parsons’s, Adams’s, etc. Proofs are now returned with final s deled, which fact leads the Autocrat of the Composing-room (the Chairman) to arise and assert that “while the practice may be correct, it is behind the times,” “all good enough fifty years ago,” “won’t go in good offices nowadays,” “never used in first-class work,” closing with the remark that he doesn’t see why it is not used in griffins’ [griffins’s] heads (!), Orphans’ [Orphans’s] Home (!), calmly ignoring the fact that in the first instance a common noun, plural, is used, and in the latter a proper noun, same number. The reader contends that the apostrophe and additional s as marked are correct, and refers to the Harper publications, Scribner’s, the Century, and the work of any good printing house. Who is right, or which is right (all questions of “style” aside)?
That Chairman evidently does not know the difference between singular and plural, or at least does not know the grammatical distinction of the forms, that has been just what it now is for more than fifty years. “Adams’s,” etc., are the right forms, beyond any possible reasonable objection; the only difficulty is that some people will not use the right forms, and have been so thoroughly drilled in the use of wrong forms that they insist that the wrong ones are right.
Please tell me what kind of mark (if any) should be placed after 4th, 21st, and like words used in a sentence where if the word were spelled out there would be no mark; as, “On the 21st of September.” My opinion is that the form is not an abbreviation. It certainly is a contraction, but nothing seems left out.
No mark should be used. The opinion that the form is not an abbreviation is a good opinion, because there is no abbreviating. Abbreviating is done by leaving off a part of the word, and it is commonly shown by using a period at the end of the short form; but some short forms, while they really are abbreviations, are not technically known as such, because they are quite properly included in another category, that of nicknames or merely short names. In this latter class are “Ed,” “Fred,” “Will,” etc. In the ordinal words of our question there is no cutting off from the end, but only substitution of a figure for the numeral part of the word, with the same ordinal termination that is used in the word when spelled out. How can anything “certainly” be a contraction when nothing seems left out? A contraction is a form made by leaving out a part from between the ends and drawing the ends together, commonly with an apostrophe in place of the omitted part, as in “dep’t” for “department”; but some real contractions are known as abbreviations by printers, because they are printed in the form of abbreviations, as “dept.,” which is often used instead of the other form. The dates with figures certainly are not contractions, as there is no omission, but mere substitution of a figure for the corresponding letters. Possibly the doubt arose from the fact that the Germans do make abbreviations of ordinal words by using a figure and a period, omitting the termination, as “21. September,” which shows plainly why the point is used.
In reading the proofs of a bicycle catalogue recently the writer compounded the words handle-bar, tool-bag, seat-post, etc., on the ground that they were all technical terms in this connection and were therefore properly compounded. For this action he was criticised, his critic claiming that handle-bar is the only proper compound of the three words mentioned, inasmuch as neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves. Will you kindly give your opinion on this matter?
The words mentioned are compounds, though they are more frequently printed in the wrongly separated form than in their proper form. Mere technicality, however, is not a good reason for compounding any words. It is the fact that “handle” and “bar” are two nouns joined to make a new noun that makes them become one word instead of two. “Handle-bar” is no more technical than “spinal column,” for instance, is anatomical (another kind of technicality), yet the first term is one word and the other is two. In the latter term the first word is an adjective, fulfilling the regular adjective office of qualifying. The other name has no qualifying element, being a mere name, representing the phrase “bar used as a handle.” How any one can imagine such a difference as that neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves, passes understanding. The circumstances are identical—two nouns in each case joined to make a new noun representing such phrases as “bag used to hold tools,” “post to support a seat,” etc. Even the accent as heard in the first part of each name truly indicates compounding. The principle is exactly the same as that which made the Greeks and Latins join two nouns in one, through which we have “geography,” which is no more truly one word than is its literal English translation, “earth-writing.”
One of our printers, in setting up a job, came across the words “large tobacco firm.” He felt sure a hyphen should be used after the word “tobacco,” so it would not be understood as a large-tobacco firm. To please him, I told him to put it in, but told him its absence showed that the tobacco firm was large, and not the tobacco. What do you do with such words as “honey crop”? I compound it when it means the first stomach of the bee, but not when the word “crop” means harvest.
Certainly, if any hyphening is done in the first words instanced, it must be that which is mentioned; but none is necessary, and probably few persons would ever think of it. Our correspondent seems to have given a hasty answer to the question, as in fact it is not strictly true that the separated words show that the firm is large, and not the tobacco. It would seem more accurate to say that no one (speaking generally) would misunderstand the separated words, because the natural conclusion is that the firm does a large business. On the contrary, if the actual intention should be that the firm dealt in large tobacco, that fact would be fixed beyond question by making a compound adjective “large-tobacco.” The distinction between “honey crop” and “honey-crop” is excellent. A principle is illustrated by it that would be worth a great deal to everybody, if only it could be established and widely understood and applied. It is difficult to state it clearly, although the two kinds of meaning seem to show a very plain difference, that might easily be less apparent in a sentence containing only one of them. We can not say that “honey” is a true adjective in the separate use, but it comes much nearer to the true adjective force in one use than it does in the other. “Honey-crop” for the stomach, as “the crop (stomach) in which honey is stored,” is simply one noun made by joining two nouns. “Honey-bag” is the word given in dictionaries for this. All the grammarians who ever wrote about this subject say that in our language two nouns so used together simply to name one thing become one word (meaning merely that they cease to be two words in such use). Of course there is much disagreement, and it does not seem probable that everybody will ever write all such terms alike; but it is absolutely certain that some compound words of such make are as fully established as if their elements were not usable separately, and it seems impossible to distinguish in any reasonable way between one such name and any other. In other words, if “honey-bag” is a compound—and it is, no matter how many or what persons write it as two words—“mail-bag,” “meal-bag,” and every similar name of a bag is a compound; and if names of bags, then likewise every similar name of anything else is a compound.
The appended clipping is from a proof of a college publication, and is part of a class history. It appears as it came from the compositor’s hands. The editor of the annual in which it will appear submitted the first of my questions (indicated below) to the president of his college, and though the latter enjoys considerable local prominence as an educator and a Greek scholar, yet was he unable to enlighten us upon this point. “In oratory we have shown our powers, and look forward to the time when the Demosthenes of ’Ninety-eight will sway senates and our Ciceros the political world.” What is the plural form of “Demosthenes”? The plural is clearly the form the author had in mind while writing it, but I am ignorant of either rule or authority governing such cases. Would you prefer reconstructing the sentence? To cover our ignorance somewhat, I suggested the following: “In oratory we have shown our powers, and now look forward to the time when ’Ninety-eight’s disciples of Demosthenes will sway senates, and its Ciceros the political world.” In the word “Reinoehl” (a proper noun), should the diphthong be used? I stated that it should not be used, and was contradicted by the editor of this same publication, who said that the president of the college maintained that the diphthong was correct. Though I could quote no authority, yet I believe I am right. The word is a German one, as you will have noticed. The words Schaeffer, Saeger, and Steinhaeuser appear without the diphthong on the same page with the word Reinoehl, yet they passed unchallenged by the editor. Would they not come under the same head as the one mentioned first?
The quotation does not seem to show positively that a plural was intended. As there was only one Demosthenes sufficiently famous for the comparison, so the writer might mean only the one best oratorical student. It is not an unnatural inference, though, that the plural was intended. The plural form of “Demosthenes” is “Demostheneses.” Why hesitate over that any more than over “Ciceros”? A regular English plural is as good for one as for the other. Greek common nouns with the termination es form the plural by substituting Æ for that ending, as “hoplites, hoplitÆ; hermes, hermÆ.” Our second example is originally a proper name, but was and is used as a common noun, meaning a bust that may or may not represent the god Hermes; but this is not a good argument in favor of a Greek plural of “Demosthenes.” The change suggested is not good, because “disciples” is not meant, the intention being merely to note a similarity, and not a studied imitation: In the German name separate letters should be used, as they represent umlaut interchangeably with a double-dotted vowel without the e; thus, either “Reinoehl” or “ReinÖhl” is right, but “Reinoehl” is wrong. The college president must have had the umlaut character (Ö) in mind, not the ligature (Æ), in answering the question. All the names mentioned are amenable to the same decision; what is right in one is right in all.
An advertisement writer brought to the office, a few days since, copy for an advertisement for a certain complexion soap in which the word which is underlined occurred: “Combined with the emollience of cucumber juice.” The proof-reader queried the word to the author, informing him that it could not be found in the dictionary (International, 1891); his response was that the word expressed the idea intended to be conveyed better than any other that he knew of, and therefore he should use it, regardless of the dictionary. I have since examined the Century Dictionary and fail to find the word. The question arising in my mind is, Should the proof-reader endeavor, when the author is present, as he was in this case, to induce him to use a word for which authority can be produced, or should the author be allowed, without a word of protest, to coin words at his own sweet will? It seems to me that the proof-reader should not be required to blindly follow an author in a case of this kind after he has satisfied himself that there is no warrant, except the whim of the author, for the use of such words. Not long since, in reading a catalogue of road machinery I noticed “barrow-pit.” Being somewhat in doubt whether it should be compounded, as already written, or two words, I consulted the International, and also the Century Dictionary, but failed to find the word in either, finally concluding to use the hyphen. Which is correct—barrow-pit, or barrow pit, or barrowpit? My preference is for the use of the hyphen.
The writer was perfectly justifiable. If no word not in a dictionary could be used, the language could not grow, and there would be many ideas left inexpressible, for want of words. Johnson’s dictionary contained many more words than any preceding work, and each new dictionary since issued has increased the record. This could not have been done if people had not used new words. Although “emollience” is not in any dictionary, there is sufficient authorization in the fact that -ence is used in forming nouns from adjectives in -ent, something that any one may do at any time, just as one may add -less to any noun, as “cigarless,” having no cigar. Emollience is the only possible single word for “character of being emollient (softening).” This is not properly a case of “whim.” The only proper restriction against such neologism is that it should not be indulged unnecessarily, as when there is already existent a good word for the sense to be expressed. “Barrow-pit” is the only form that principle and commonest usage will justify for this word—but the same principle gives also “advertisement-writer,” “complexion-soap,” “cucumber-juice,” and “road-machinery,” each of which you write as two words. Your decision to use the hyphen in “barrow-pit” is in accordance with all text-book teaching on the subject, and unless such teaching is applicable in all strictly similar cases it is all bad. It can hardly be necessary to reach any such pessimistic conclusion as that expressed in a letter from a country superintendent of schools—“I do not know anything about it, and I do not believe any one else does.” Our grammarians are not all idiots. What possible principle could justify such a difference as “advertisement writer” and “proof-reader” (for “one who writes advertisements” and “one who reads proof”)? If one of them is one word, the other also is one, the only difference being that some such familiar short words are written without a hyphen.
You in a recent edition, speaking of Roman type, used lower-case r. We write to ask what, if any, warrant you have among grammarians or lexicographers for the lower-case initial letter in an adjective of this class. Would it by the same authority be proper to use a lower-case in the word “Parisian,” “Chicago” used as an adjective, etc.?
No rule as to capitalizing has wider acceptance or better basis in principle than that an adjective derived from a proper noun should be capitalized, and “Roman” is such an adjective. However, in the connection this word has in the matter with which we are dealing, the lower-case letter is not wrong, though “parisian,” “chicago” in any use, or any other such use of a lower-case initial letter would be wrong. Reasons will be given after some authorities are cited. The “Century Dictionary” says: “Roman, a. ... [l. c. or cap.] Noting a form of letter or type of which the text of this book is an example”; also, “Roman, n. ... [l. c.] A roman letter or type, in distinction from an italic.” The “Standard,” under the noun, “[R- or r-] A style of ceriphed type. ... also, a black gothic letter, etc.” The “Imperial,” the standard Scotch dictionary, says of the adjective, “applied to the common, upright letter in printing, as distinguished from italic,” and of the noun, “A roman letter or type.” Benjamin Drew, in “Pens and Types,” page 199, in speaking of specimens of old-style type given in his book, says: “The next is a Fac-simile of four roman and three italic Lines.” He says on page 57, in introducing two lists of foreign words: “The roman list is destined to be continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.” Webster and Worcester missed the point of distinction in usage that was discerned by the other lexicographers, and they capitalize “Roman” and “Italic.” The questioner does not say anything about “italics,” used in the same paragraph with “roman,” yet evidently the two words should be treated alike. In fact, neither word in this use has its literal sense, nor conveys a thought of Italy or Rome. When this literal sense is expressed the words should be capitalized, just as “Parisian” and “Chicago” should be. Webster actually says that “Roman” means “upright, erect,” which is plainly not a meaning showing connection with a proper noun, and, in fact, is not a true definition for the word with which it is given. The word has no real sense other than its literal one, but the literal allusion is so far removed from conscious apprehension in the printing use that it is proper and prevalent usage to write it as a common noun or adjective, just as such form has become prevalent in many other cases, as— - boycott
- bowie-knife
- badminton
- gothic
- herculean
- protean
- china
- india-rubber
- ampere
Have our correspondents ever noticed these words in books? The writer of this answer has no hesitation in asserting that “italics” and “italicize,” which have far more literary use than “roman,” will be found with a lower-case initial much more frequently than otherwise; and the same is true of “roman” in printers’ use, which must be looked for mainly in printers’ books. What is here said, however, should not be applied too strictly; the word in question should be capitalized in special work such as that of our correspondents, where probably all similar words have capitals, as Gothic, Doric, Ionic, etc.
|
  |
