Nav bar

The Economist used a hyphen after an adverb ending in “ly”—did it err or am I missing something?

From Mr Bush’s first veto in the July 22, 2006 Economist (subscription required):

And a decision by Mr Bush in 2001 allows federally-funded scientists to experiment on the few dozen embryonic stem-cell “lines” that already existed then, which can be propagated in a laboratory [emphasis mine].

I don’t like pointing out grammatical mistakes unless I’m on the clock or they’re amusing (yes, I know that the capitalization of the tags on this site is inconsistent—it’s a software issue, however, and not a grammatical one). In fact, I try not to edit when I am reading for pleasure—it slows me down.

When The Economist breaks a convention, however, (and not just by using quirky British English) I run to my grammar books.

From the adverbs entry (p. 36) of The Economist Style Guide (remember when I wrote that this book was a good reference?):

Adverbs do not need to be linked to participles or adjectives by hyphens in simple constructions: The regiment was ill equipped for its task; The principle is well established; Though expensively educated, the journalist knew no grammar. But if the adverb is one of two words together being used adjectivally, a hyphen may be needed: The ill-equipped regiment was soon repulsed; All well-established principles should be periodically challenged. The hyphen is especially likely to be needed if the adverb is short and common, such as ill, little, much and well. Less-common adverbs, including all those that end -ly, are less likely to need hyphens: Never employ an expensively educated journalist [emphasis mine].

Did the impeccable Economist err or am I missing something?

, , , , ,

No comments yet.

Reply