|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
1629 days ago
|
|
|
> the author used two different ways of hyphenating No, first, it doesn't use hyphenating at all, it uses hyphens as an ASCII approximation for typographical dashes used to set off a phrase (a distinct function from hyphenation), and, second, in that quote they used one way of doing it: “two dashes set closed on the side of the main sentence and set open on the side of set-off phrase”. It is an unusual way of doing it—just as with actual typographical dashes, setting open or closed symmetrically would be more common—but it's not two ways. EDIT: And the third use (in the heading and later in the body) is seperating parts where neither is a mid-sentence appositive phrase, and uses open-on-both sides. So that's not a different way of doing the same thing, it's a different way of doing a semantically different thing. Actually, I think the dash use makes a good illustration of how the “it” in “one way to do it” is intended. |
|
|
Eh, I don't think that's the interpretation the author was going for. The author wanted to show two different ways of approximating a dash, and he had limited options.
If he'd done this-- for example-- he would have been showing one way, not two.
If he'd done this --for example-- you would have called it "two dashes set open on the side of the main sentence and set closed on the side of set-off phrase".
If he'd done this-- for example -- it would have been too obvious (on the same line).
I suppose he could have done this-- for example--but I still think that would have been too obvious. You're not supposed to see it on a first read.
> And the third use (in the heading and later in the body) is seperating parts where neither is a mid-sentence appositive phrase, and uses open-on-both sides. So that's not a different way of doing the same thing, it's a different way of doing a semantically different thing.
It's a different use of a dash, but it's still a place where you'd typically use a dash.
-----
Edit: You know what, thinking about it again—perhaps both interpretations are valid. That almost adds to the effectiveness of the whole thing.