Oy vey [no hyphen]. That was a valiant effort, Ray, but it=20
still doesn'=92t demonstrate illogical hyphenation of proposed
bird names. Appeals to Style Manuals simply don'=92t address the=20
issue at hand. For one thing, we are dealing with the special=20
case of creating *names*, *new words*, not simply stringing=20
existing words together to craft *sentences*. There is a long=20
history in English of hypenating two words to create a single=20
noun that is the *name* of something. Browsing my Webster'=92s=20
New World, I find adder=92's-mouth, adder=92's-tongue, after-shave,=20
all-American, and myriad and sundry other nouns created by=20
splicing two words together with a hyphen. =20

For another thing, the "rules" in style manuals are based on=20
"esthetics" at least as often as they are on logic. We are counseled=20
by authors of American English style manuals to end quoted=20
passages with the period *inside* the quotation marks. But=20
if the quoted passage is only *part* of the sentence in question,=20
the end-quote mark *logically* belongs inside the period. Things=20
get really messy when you=92're dealing with question marks. But these=20
folks think it just *looks better* on the page with the quote marks on=20
the outside. And what about simple possessives of words ending in=20
*s*? Ross=92' or Ross's? The esthetics boys write *Ross'* even
though they say *Ross-es*. Yeah, these guys are logical, all=20
right. (Strunk & White do it right: Ross=92's). =20

Now, can we move on to something more pressing, such as=20
rounding up all the birders who voted for Gorton and making=20
them wear scarlet Gs on their binocular straps? =20

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu