From: Thomas Adam <thomas.adam22@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:02:01 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] manual: Fix or remove em dashes.
Message-ID: <18071eea0710091502y3b70231dnd4270a3155af91a8@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071009215255.GB3146@ins.uni-bonn.de>

On 09/10/2007, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello, and sorry, this patch should be number 6/6 of course.
>
> * Thomas Adam wrote on Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:41:41PM CEST:
> > On 09/10/2007, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > em dashes were used inconsistently in the manual.
> > > This changes them to the way they are used in US English.
> >
> > I find this particular patch to be rather odd; there is nothing
> > invalid in the way the em-dashes are used.
>
> No, not invalid, just inconsistent usage in the manual.
>
> > Why is it US English is somehow de facto over, say, proper English?
> > :)
>
> Oh, that was written quoting from memory and experience.  But here's a
> quote to back it up, from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash> as of now:
>
> | According to most American sources (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style)
> | and to some British sources (e.g., The Oxford Guide to Style), an em
> | dash should always be set closed (not surrounded by spaces). But the
> | practice in many parts of the English-speaking world[...] sets it
> | open [...]
>
> No, I did not write that!  ;-)

Well, I don't see why it needs to change, to be honest.  I use
em-dashes all the time surrounded by spaces, as do many academics.
The fact that may here in the UK do not use the letter z in place of s
to satisfy the OSD is also of equal testament to this.

-- Thomas Adam