Back to

Has modern life killed the semicolon?

http://www.slate.com/id/2194087/

Yes, and what do you do when the source has double spacing?

I usually remove the double spacing, but I always have an uneasy feeling that I am in the wrong.

Nanna 

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on April 3, 2008 3:19 PM http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=68: For all of you haters of the double-space after a full-stop, I hate to tell you that I am writing a style guide for my organization that will include it as a rule. We create very formal documents. To ensure the documents are as intelligible as possible, we will use two spaces. I do not care what font you use. Laziness is acceptable in today's culture many places, but I will not allow it in the documents I edit. We also use 1-inch margins instead of the MS Word default of 1.25 inches because we need to fit as much information into as little space as possible while not neglecting our need to be as succinct as possible.

Interesting that someone who is obviously very much against ‘laziness’ would nonetheless write a style guide that codifies what is originally itself a sign of laziness: the double-space.

Were he interested in maintaining optimal intelligibility and readability in his organisation’s “very formal documents”, he should codify the usage of the character the double-space is a lazy typewriter workaround for: the em space.

Then again, he does seem to refer to Microsoft Word as a guiding line or standard for page layout, so I’d say his blather can be dismissed fairly easily.

Link inserted by the moderator

Thanks Nanna for inserting that link. I saw it at the same time.

It points to a statement by a (Scott | Aug-7-07 1:28PM) in the discussion at http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=68:

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on April 3, 2008 3:19 PM http://www.painintheenglish.com/post.php?id=68: For all of you haters of the double-space after a full-stop, I hate to tell you that I am writing a style guide for my organization that will include it as a rule. We create very formal documents. To ensure the documents are as intelligible as possible, we will use two spaces. I do not care what font you use. Laziness is acceptable in today's culture many places, but I will not allow it in the documents I edit. We also use 1-inch margins instead of the MS Word default of 1.25 inches because we need to fit as much information into as little space as possible while not neglecting our need to be as succinct as possible.

It is certainly important for people who use the quote feature here on TC to check the post they are quoting and make sure that internal citations and references are not deleted.

Jeff

My apologies. In my eager to make the quoted message shorter, I must accidentally have chopped off a line too many—and then my post appeared at the top of a new page, further breaking whatever continuity there was!

Originally written by Janus Jacquet  the double-space is a lazy typewriter workaround for: the em space.

Even assuming that the double-space developed as a substitute for the em space (source?), I don't see why such a development is necessarily a "lazy" one.  Instead, it could be seen as a matter of efficiency.  Was the development of moveable type a lazy workaround for copying books by hand?

Regardless of its historical origins, I think the double space serves a valuable function, as it helps to clearly demarcate sentences, which theoretically are self-contained, if inter-related, ideas.

It was funny, Jeff, for I read the words supposedly attributed to Jacek and thought, "Hmn...does he really think that?" and I hurried to check.

And as for you, Janus...you will be hung or hanged (whichever) at dawn.

Nanna

Pardon my ignorance, but what, pray tell, is an m-space?  I have always used two spaces after a period or question mark.  When did that change, and why?  How can it be lazy to hit the space bar twice instead of once, since it's twice as much work?

Confused,;:?

Maxi

Don't ask me, Maxi. I am just the hapless moderator.

Nanna, who is equally clueless