[Groff] Re: Hyphens and Dashes

[Jeff Conrad]

Ted Harding wrote:
 
>    "the Herzsprung\(enRussell diagram" (see astrophysics; this
>    is a compound name made of the names of the two astronomers
>    Herzsprung and Russell). It's quite common to use the hyphen
>    in this context; however, though I personally consider the
>    en-dash to be better.

The Chicago Manual of style also agrees that the en dash is better
(actually, proper).  Though people often use a hyphen, in many cases, doing
so makes it much harder on the reader.  One example: Joe Ossanna's classic
description in early troff documentation of the "pseudo-page transition"
onto the first page.  What's "pseudo" is the transition rather than the
page; printing this out as "pseudo\(enpage transition" illustrates the
difference.  In fairness to Joe, troff didn't have an en dash at that time.

One additional difference between an en dash and a minus: a minus ('\-' or
'\(mi') is the same width a plus ('+' or '\(pl'), and if a minus and plus
are stacked vertically in a table, they are horizontally aligned.  Although
an en dash often will give similar results, this may not always be the
case.

I second all of Ted's comments, including experimenting with thin spaces at
the beginning and and of dashes.  His usage suggestions are completely in
accord with practice in the United States.

I also second Steve's suggestion to use '--' for an em dash (for ease of
typing and readability) and have a script replace them prior to sending
them to groff.  In a similar manner, `` and '' can be replaced with proper
opening and closing double quotes, although one must be careful to avoid
unintended consequences.  It would be nice if there were a way to have such
a script called automatically (in a manner similar to the 'prepro' entry in
DESC).  Ultimately, I like Werner's suggestion a while back to treat
sequences such as '--', ``, and '' as ligatures, eliminating the need for a
script.

I agree with Alejandro's recommendation of the Chicago Manual of Style as
an authoritative guide to U.S. practice.  Although it has no official
status, it's by far the most widely referenced style guide in this country,
probably because the University of Chicago Press wrote it long before
anyone else bothered.  I'd use the Chicago Manual with caution outside of
the U.S., however; one obvious example of where U.S. practice differs from
most of the rest of the world is in placing periods and commas inside of
closing quotes, regardless of context.  I'm sure there are comparable
guides for other countries.

Jeff Conrad