Compound Words.
by Frederick W. Hamilton.
PREFACE
The subject of compounds is one of the most difficult of the matters relating to correct literary composition. The difficulty arises from the fact that usage, especially in the matter of the presence or absence of the hyphen, is not clearly settled. Progressive tendencies are at work and there is great difference of usage, even among authorities of the first rank, with regard to many compounds in common use.
An attempt is made to show first the general character of the problems involved. Then follows a discussion of the general principles of compounding. The general rules for the formation of compounds are stated and briefly discussed. The various components of compounds are fully a.n.a.lyzed and tabulated. The best modern usage in the matter of the employment of the hyphen is set forth in a series of rules. The whole is concluded by practical advice to the compositor as to the use of the rules in the actual work of the office.
INTRODUCTION
The English language contains a great many words and phrases which are made up of two or more words combined or related in such a way as to form a new verbal phrase having a distinct meaning of its own and differing in meaning from the sum of the component words taken singly.
_Income_ and _outgo_, for example, have quite definite meanings related, it is true, to _come_ and _go_ and to _in_ and _out_, but sharply differentiated from those words in their ordinary and general signification. We use these compound words and phrases so commonly that we never stop to think how numerous they are, or how frequently new ones are coined. Any living language is constantly growing and developing new forms. New objects have to be named, new sensations expressed, new experiences described.
Sometimes these words are mere aggregations like _automobile_, _monotype_, _sidewalk_, _policeman_ and the like. Sometimes, indeed very often, they are short cuts. A _hatbox_ is a box for carrying a hat, a _red-haired_ man is a man with red hair. A _bookcase_ is a case to contain books, etc.
Sometimes the phrase consists of two or more separate words, such as _well known_ or _nicely kept_. Sometimes it consists of words joined by a hyphen, such as _boarding-house_, _sleeping-car_. Sometimes it consists of a single word formed by amalgamating or running together the components, such as _penholder_, _nevertheless_.
In which of these forms shall we write the phrase we speak so easily?
How shall we shape the new word we have just coined? Which of these three forms shall we use, and why? Ordinarily we look for the answer to such questions from three sources, historical development, the past of the language; some logical principle of general application; or some recognized standard of authority. Unfortunately we get little help from either of these sources in this special difficulty.
The history of the language is a history of constant change. The Anglo-Saxon tongue was full of compounds, but the hyphen was an unknown device to those who spoke it. The English of Chaucer, the period when our new-born English tongue was differentiated from those which contributed to its composition, is full of compounds, and the compounds were generally written with a hyphen. Shakespeare used many compound words and phrases some of which sound strange, if not uncouth, to modern ears, but used the hyphen much less than Chaucer. In modern times the tendency has been and is to drop the hyphen. The more general progression seems to be (1) two words, (2) two words hyphenated, (3) two words run together into one. Sometimes, however, the hyphen drops, leaving two words separated. That there is constant change, and that the change is progressing consistently in the direction of eliminating the hyphen is fairly clear. This, however, does not help us much. At what stage of the process are we with regard to any given word? Which form of the process is operating in any given case?
There are no laws or principles of universal application on which we may build a consistent system of practice. Certain general principles have been laid down and will be here set forth. While they are helpful to the understanding of the subject they are not sufficiently universal to serve as practical guides in all cases. In any event they need to be supplemented by careful study of the rules for the use of the hyphen, by careful study of the best usage in particular cases, and by thorough knowledge of the style of each particular office, as will be pointed out later. Authorities and usage differ widely, and it is often difficult to say that a particular form is right or wrong.
There is no recognized standard authority. The dictionaries do not agree with each other and are not always consistent with themselves. They may always write a certain word in a certain way but they may write another word to all appearance exactly a.n.a.logous to the first in another way.
For example Worcester has _brickwork_ and _bra.s.swork_, but _wood-work_ and _iron-work_. Webster, on the other hand, has _woodwork_ and _brick-work_.
The best that the printer can do is to adopt a set of rules or style of his own and stick to it consistently. Here and there a generally accepted change, like the dropping of the hyphen from _tomorrow_ and _today_ will force itself upon him, but for the most part he may stick to his style. Of course, the author, if he has a marked preference, must be permitted to use his own methods of compounding except in magazine publications and the like. In such cases, when the author"s work is to appear in the same volume with that of other writers, the style of the printing office must rule and the individual contributors must bow to it.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Three general principles are laid down by Mr. F. Horace Teall which will be found useful, though they must be supplemented in practice by more specific rules which will be given later. They are as follows:
I All words should be separate when used in regular grammatical relations and construction unless they are jointly applied in some arbitrary way.
An _iron fence_ means a fence made of iron. The meaning and construction are normal and the words are not compounded.
An _iron-saw_ means a saw for cutting iron. The meaning is not the same as _iron saw_ which would mean a saw made of iron. The hyphenated compound indicates the special meaning of the words used in this combination.
_Ironwood_ is a specific name applied to a certain kind of very hard wood. Hence, it becomes a single word compounded but without a hyphen. Either of the other forms would be ambiguous or impossible in meaning.
II Abnormal a.s.sociations of words generally indicate unification in sense and hence compounding in form.
A _sleeping man_ is a phrase in which the words are a.s.sociated normally. The man sleeps.
A _sleeping-car_ is a phrase in which the words are a.s.sociated abnormally. The car does not sleep. It is a specially constructed car in which the pa.s.sengers may sleep comfortably.
A _king fisher_ might be a very skilful fisherman. A _kingfisher_ is a kind of bird. Here again we have an abnormal a.s.sociation of words and as the compound word is the name of a specific sort of bird there is no hyphen. A _king-fisher_, if it meant anything, would probably mean one who fished for kings, as a _pearl-diver_ is one who dives for pearls.
III Conversely, no expression in the language should ever be changed from two or more words into one (either hyphenated or solid) without change of sense.
_Saw trimmer_ is not compounded because there is no change in the commonly accepted sense of either word.
_Color work_ is not compounded because the word _color_, by usage common in English, has the force of an adjective, and the words are used in their accepted sense. In other languages it would be differently expressed, for example, in French it would be _oeuvre_, or _imprimerie en couleur_, _work_, or, _printing in color_.
_Presswork_ is compounded because it has a special and specific meaning. Good or bad presswork is a good or bad result of work done on a press.
Here as everywhere in printing the great purpose is to secure plainness and intelligibility. Print is made to read. Anything which obscures the sense, or makes the pa.s.sage hard to read is wrong. Anything which clears up the sense and makes the pa.s.sage easy to read and capable of only one interpretation is right.
INFLUENCE OF ACCENT IN COMPOUNDING
Some writers lay much stress on the influence of accent in the formation of compounds while others ignore it entirely. Accent undoubtedly has some influence and the theory may be easily and intelligibly expressed.
It ought to be understood, but it will not be found an entirely safe guide. Usage has modified the results of compounding in many cases in ways which do not lend themselves to logical explanation and cla.s.sification.
The general principle as stated by Mr. Teall is as follows:
When each part of the compound is accented, use the hyphen; _laughter-loving_.
When only one part is accented, omit the hyphen; _many sided_.
When the accent is changed, print the compound solid; _broadsword_.
This follows the general rule of accenting the first syllable in English words.
RULES FOR THE FORMATION OF COMPOUNDS
I Two nouns used together as a name form a compound noun unless:
(_a_) The first is used in a descriptive or attributive sense, that is, is really an adjective, or
(_b_) The two are in apposition.
Various uses of the noun as an adjective, that is, in some qualifying or attributive sense are when the noun conveys the sense of:
1. "Made of;" _leather belt_, _steel furniture_.
2. "Having the shape, character, or quality of;" _diamond pane_, _iron ration_, _bull calf_.