Power to the People! (Or to the Writers At Least...)

The evolution of the English language is a surprisingly democratic process. Unlike France, Spain, and other countries with “language academies,” English has no official authority. While a handful of prevailing style guides dispense wisdom to their various industries, we--the ordinary writers and speakers of the language--are often the agents and arbiters of its change. Usually, we exercise our power by creating and eliminating words: in 2019, we ratified “fatberg” and “deep state” while quietly retiring “brabble” and “snollygoster.” Recently, however, a far more fastidious concern rallied citizens to its defense: hyphenation of compound nouns. 

The hyphen is that humble dash that helps us distinguish a “little used car” from a “little-used car.” Despite its important role in clarifying meaning, for years general guidance by the AP Stylebook has stated that “Use of the hyphen is far from standardized. It is optional in most cases, a matter of taste, judgment and style sense.” The Chicago Manual of Style likewise “prefers a spare hyphenation style,” and suggests that “hyphens should be added only if doing so will prevent a misreading or otherwise significantly aid comprehension.” (CMOS 7.89) Though case-specific guidance differs from one manual to the next, most acknowledge the general trend of dropping the hyphen when a compound word is commonly recognized. Thus, when the AP’s 2019 revisions sustained this trend, one might reasonably have expected a sober reception of the announcement: 

We updated our hyphen guidance this year to say no hyphen is needed in a compound modifier if the modifier is commonly recognized as one phrase, and if the meaning is clear and unambiguous without the hyphen.

One example is first quarter touchdown. pic.twitter.com/8AJc0zCwJm  

— AP Stylebook (@APStylebook) August 28, 2019

The Twitterverse was anything but calm in response. A great many writers and editors, it appeared, simply weren’t ready to exchange explicit rules for judgment calls. 

Not one month after that ill-fated announcement, AP rescinded the change: 

Speaking of judgment calls: Some of you disagreed with our move to delete the hyphen from first-quarter touchdown, third-quarter earnings and other -quarter terms. Upon further reflection and thanks to your feedback, we’re reversing that decision. pic.twitter.com/1176944403996401665

— AP Stylebook (@APStylebook) Sept 25, 2019

In an email to Poynter, a non-profit journalism school, AP Stylebook Editor Paula Froke conceded “We agree that, for instance, ‘first-half run’ should be hyphenated. So to conform, we are returning the hyphen to the ‘-quarter’ phrases.” 

The quarters may have their hyphen back, but AP’s most current guidance refuses to relent the principle: “If a hyphen makes the meaning clearer, use it. If it just adds clutter and distraction to the sentence, don’t use it.” We here at Amend are in agreement and think the hyphen between compound nouns should be used sparingly.

Let’s all take a moment to glory in the power at our fingertips. We are the architects of language! The defenders of meaning! So stand proud and keep writing, blogging, and, yes, even tweeting your heart out... but don’t hesitate to drop us a line when those editing judgment calls get you down. It’s why we’re here.

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish?

For want of a comma $10,000,000 was lost!

Generally, the “burning” issue of the serial (aka “Oxford”) comma is more smoke than fire, just barely pushing out split infinitives as the battle ground for grammar nerds. Bloggers dig it up now and then because a misplaced comma can lead to some amusing mental images, but, except for when the AP Style Guide—the only guide in the US that does not require the serial comma—releases a new edition, it does not rise to press-worthy.

That is until last week. On the morning of March 16th editors everywhere gasped in amazement at how much attention their work suddenly received—and all for the want of one little comma.

Truck drivers for a large Maine dairy won a class-action lawsuit for overtime because of a failure to edit with care. Maine has a law that states overtime rules do not apply to:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

(1) Agricultural produce;

(2) Meat and fish products; and

(3) Perishable foods.

 

For four years the dairy had not paid drivers overtime on the basis that the law included them under the last item on the list. The dairy argued that the list of food-processing jobs exempt from overtime law specified “distribution” and obviously included the drivers. The drivers’ attorneys countered, arguing that their clients were nowhere on the list. The last item on the list, they pointed out, was “packing for shipment or distribution.” Drivers do not pack for shipment or distribution, they actually distribute and deliver milk, and, as the legislature had not included them in the law, the dairy owed them $10,000,000 in overtime pay. A federal appeals court agreed.

While it is obvious in the context of the sentence that the law intends drivers to be exempt, it is not clear in the construction of the sentence that this is the case. One last comma between or and distribution could have saved the dairy an impressive pile of cash. I would modestly suggest that an editor would have been much cheaper!

Should I Hire an Editor?

Here is a test to determine if you need an editor:

Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Did you pass? Congratulations! While this version claims that the ability to read this is a slightly below-average skill (fifty-five out of a hundred means that most people can do it), other variations declare only geniuses can read it. So again, congratulations, but unfortunately, it also means that you might need an editor. It is astounding how easily everyone--including "geniuses" like you and me who can read the message above--can adapt and overlook simple mistakes. This problem only grows when applied your own writing. You know what you mean to say and your brain adapts to see it. Suddenly, there are no spelling mistakes, dangling modifiers, or gaps in logic. Suddenly, your Civil War character is dying in 1683 instead of 1863. Suddenly, the difference between a restricted and unrestricted clause disappears. When this happens, your writing suffers and so do your readers.

Don't be embarrassed; this happens to everyone who attempts to write.  Once, I sent off a piece to be published, but it came back rejected. The rejection offered no feedback on tone or pacing or argument, but, instead, had one long comment from a reviewer pointing out I routinely replaced "from" with "form" and how that mistake made the piece a chore to read. You are already ahead of me. At that point, I had not even asked if I needed an editor.

Take a tip from the pros: hire an editor. Professional writers know that an editor is the difference between good intentions and excellent execution, or, put another way, rejection and publication.