0
Goronsky Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
The Economist
The Economist uses the following examples. Note that for a range they omit the hyphens in the modifiers (first set of examples below). But for singular entities (at the very bottom) they use the hyphens in the modifiers.
Does this make sense, and is this form of punctuation acceptable? Do you support all examples below exactly as they're punctuated? For the ranges in the first set of examples, I don't think clarity is compromised in the slightest degree?
5-10 year forecasts
5-10 year periods
5-10 year range
5-10 year olds
10-year yields
10-year-olds
10-year range
10-year forecasts
Does this make sense, and is this form of punctuation acceptable? Do you support all examples below exactly as they're punctuated? For the ranges in the first set of examples, I don't think clarity is compromised in the slightest degree?
5-10 year forecasts
5-10 year periods
5-10 year range
5-10 year olds
10-year yields
10-year-olds
10-year range
10-year forecasts
Top answer
goronsky 5-10 year forecasts 5-10 year periods 5-10 year range 5-10 year olds The first three are making the best of a bad job. The alternative, '5-10-year forecasts(/yields/range)' is undesirable because the two hyphens are used for different purposes. The fourth is ugly, but I see no simple alternative.
- goronsky 5-10 year forecasts 5-10 year periods 5-10 year range 5-10 year olds The first three are making the best of a bad job.
- The alternative, '5-10-year forecasts(/yields/range)' is undesirable because the two hyphens are used for different purposes.
- The fourth is ugly, but I see no simple alternative.
- The other four are fine.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
goronsky5-10 year forecasts 5-10 year periods 5-10 year range 5-10 year oldsThe first three are making the best of a bad job. The alternative, '5-10-year forecasts(/yields/range)' is undesirable because the two hyphens are used for different purposes.
The fourth is ugly, but I see no simple alternative.
The other four are fine.
00
But if The Economist punctuates these as they do, it must be fine, right?
00
As I believe I have mentioned before, we are moderately flexible about punctuation in BrE.. When we have awkward problems such as those posed by your first four, we don't agonise too much. The Economist's versions are what I would probably use.
00
Much of punctuation is a matter of style, rather than grammar.
There are a number of style guides. The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook are two of them. Most major publications have their own "house style."
Pick a style and stick with it within the same piece. Consistency is more important than the actual stylistic choice, in most cases.
There are a number of style guides. The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook are two of them. Most major publications have their own "house style."
Pick a style and stick with it within the same piece. Consistency is more important than the actual stylistic choice, in most cases.
00
BarbaraPAMuch of punctuation is a matter of style, rather than grammar. There are a number of style guides. The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook are two of them. Most major publications have their own "house style."Pick a style and stick with it within the same piece. Consistency is more important than the actual stylistic choice, in most cases.No
0
Related Questions