<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title>Tadfor, Tom Little</title>	<link>http://tc.eserver.org/authors/Tadfor,_Tom_Little</link>
	<description>A bibliography of works by Tadfor, Tom Little in the field of technical communication.</description>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<copyright>Copyright (c) 2005-08 by the EServer. All rights reserved.</copyright>
	<managingEditor>tclib-editorial@eserver.org (TC Library Editorial Board)</managingEditor>
	<webMaster>webmaster@eserver.org (Geoffrey Sauer)</webMaster>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Great Hyphenation Hoax</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/10815.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/10815.html</guid>
		<description>I want to discuss one particular aspect of Chicago&apos;s hyphenation advice, which seems questionable at the outset and is so often abused in practice that I think it needs a good thrashing. This is the notion that a compound adjective should be hyphenated when it immediately precedes a noun, and left open when it follows the noun, for example in the predicate. Chicago&apos;s example is fast sailing ship, which is ambiguous because it might mean a sailing ship that is fast or a ship that is sailing fast. Hence, to resolve the ambiguity, you hyphenate fast-sailing if you mean to say it is a ship that is sailing fast. But the hyphen is not necessary except when the phrase immediately precedes ship, because the phrase is not ambiguous elsewhere. </description>
	</item>
	<atom:link href="http://tc.eserver.org/authors/Tadfor,_Tom_Little.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
</channel>
</rss>