Skip to content

removing hyphenation from ly adverbs #8054

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lorihughes
Copy link

@lorihughes lorihughes commented Jul 14, 2025

Change: remove hyphenation on -ly adverbs in the text (only the text) of the Standard.

Reason: Most common writing style guides omit hyphenation for -ly adverbs; i.e., an -ly adverb + adjective combination does not create a compound adjective.

Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., 5.93: "(3) A two-word phrasal adjective that begins with an adverb ending in -ly is not hyphenated {a sharply worded reprimand}"
Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., 7.85: "With the exception of proper nouns (such as United States) and compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective, it is never incorrect to hyphenate adjectival compounds before a noun."

New Oxford Style Manual [Oxford Univ Press, 2016], 3.3.3: "Do not hyphenate adjectival compounds where the first element is an adverb ending in -ly"

New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th ed., hyphen: "Never use a hyphen after an adverb ending in ly"

AP Stylebook, 55th ed., hyphen: "No hyphen is needed to link a two-word phrase that includes the adverb very and all adverbs ending in -ly"

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 14, 2025

Some of these are fine, but some are technical definitions (incompletely defined object, potentially-evaluated) and changes those doesn't seem editorial to me.

@lorihughes
Copy link
Author

How do "potentially-evaluated" and "incompletely-defined object" technically differ from "potentially evaluated" and "incompletely defined object"?

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 14, 2025

They are terms that have been invented by the Core Working Group and should probably not be changed by the editor without at least checking with CWG. It's not what they mean that matters, it's the fact that they are defined terms which have been chosen specifically. It's not editorial to change them.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 14, 2025

I'm not saying they shouldn't be fixed, only that I think a slightly different process should be used to fix them (even if it's just asking CWG to approve the change before merging this).

@@ -6996,7 +6996,7 @@
of interest, but in a \tcode{forward_list} there is no constant-time way to access a
preceding element.
For this reason, \tcode{erase_after} and \tcode{splice_after}
take fully-open ranges, not semi-open ranges.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is an interesting case: I understand that, in isolation, an adverb qualifies an adjective. But here we're drawing from a coherent family of terms like "half-open", "semi-open", "closed-open", "open-open", "fully-open", "fully-closed" (some of which are synonyms), where there isn't always an adverb as the first part, but it's still useful to have a common style to show that these are all members of the same technical domain, and we don't mean "fully open" in some other, broader sense. ("You've not been fully open about your use of fully-open ranges")

(Not to be confused with "clopen", which is both open and closed at once, and something different :-) )

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In "You've not been fully open about your use of fully-open ranges," the function of fully is still the same in both uses: It's an adverb describing an adjective. With "half-open," you have a compound adjective, but -ly adverbs do not form compound adjectives, even when our terminology would be nicely consistent and tidy if they did.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants