1

Working on a new edition of work published in the '50s that should now largely conform to the Chicago Manual of Style. To do this, some changes in punctuation are allowed but not to the writing. The following passage contains what is to me a highly unusual inclusion of a dash at the end of a sentence after terminal punctuation. I'm not sure if I've seen this before in English, but have, albeit extremely rarely, in German, the author's first language. (He was fully bilingual.) How does this strike others? Does it exist in English usage in rare cases? And does it not seem that a trailing-off ellipsis is called for instead? It's the second dash:

"On the other hand, there is much hopeful thinking that things will sort themselves out, that one could well cross out from the budget the expense item of planning or design—and just muddle through, let things happen.—    

[Then begins a new paragraph]

"Quite related to the scruples we speak of . . ."

Typothalamus
  • 97
  • What does the Chicago Manual of Style say about that? – Robusto Feb 11 '24 at 14:59
  • 2
    Since the sentence is completed, the four-dot ellipsis is warranted. A dash after a full stop is very unusual. The trailing-off ellipsis is warranted by the change in topic and new paragraph. If there is a really significant break, a dinkus [Wikipedia] (three asterisks, spaced dots etc) may be used between paragraphs. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 11 '24 at 15:42
  • 2
    Most things exist in English usage, even if you can't search for them on Google books. It's not particularly common, and I'm sure Chicago doesn't like it, but I'm sure I've seen it (maybe in poetry). (While you might choose an ellipsis, you're probably just as well leaving it as a period. Better to remove extraneous punctuation than introduce your own.) – Stuart F Feb 11 '24 at 17:31
  • 1
    You'll find it used in some eighteenth-century fiction, especially I think Tristram Shandy. – Brian Donovan Feb 11 '24 at 19:20
  • I don’t see any need for a trailing-off ellipsis. I would remove the em-dash. – Tinfoil Hat Feb 11 '24 at 23:25
  • Yes, the thought occurred to me as well, that it's an aside, in which case, mustn't the terminal punctuation still be on the outside? It's really the em following a final period that sorely stands out as the break from convention. I've gone through the original 1950s MS to locate this and any other similar attempt to use an em after final punctuation and see what the editor(s) at OUP did about it or if they remarked upon it. Unfortunately this chapter is missing from the version of the MS I have and there are no other instances of this construction appearing in the book. – Typothalamus Feb 12 '24 at 08:38
  • The mentioned precedent in existing literature, Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy, was food for thought. The "Shandean dash" liberally deployed in its prose is a standout feature, including after terminal punctuation. It's still very unusual. But I'm noting in the Shandean examples the final dash is often a double em dash, while the preceding one is standard. This seems to convey more intentionality, to look less like an error. The dinkus is utilized now, often, in the new version, but not suited here as it's in more significant breaks preceding and following here. – Typothalamus Feb 12 '24 at 09:14

1 Answers1

1

I suggest in modern English, there could never be a case where any dash at the end of a sentence was necessary or even helpful… the more so if it came 'after punctuation…' whatever that might mean.

Brian Donovan's 18th C strikes me as wholly appropriate… centuries ago, when writers and editors, publishers and even printers still made their own rules… or just made spot decisions with no clear reference to any rules.

Even in this Answer Post, I use ellipses where the OQ seems to suggest dashes, and I ask everyone who thinks dashes might be more suitable to speak up now and say how, preferably with a detailed explanation.

To me '… happen.—' will never be acceptable.

Can anyone who sees '… happen.—' as acceptable, explain how or why or preferably both?

Robbie Goodwin
  • 2,564
  • Given that we're dealing with a known work from the '50s by a highly regarded architect and theorist, changes are not on the table in the way they would be as a fresh edit of an unpublished work. It's clearly out of step with any convention, however, to use a standard em-dash here, and the feel to this case—the intended meaning—seems very much like a trailing-off ellipsis. Perhaps a compromise that covers all the bases (the apparent similarity to an ellipsis yet still maintaining a dash) might be a Shandean-type double-length dash, distinguishable from an em but conveying intentionality.—— – Typothalamus Mar 13 '24 at 02:37
  • If you must stick with the original that would be fine.

    If you want a modern version, there could no place for ' (anything).— ' at the end of a sentence, or anywhere else.

    If you want to keep the dash in a modern version, you need to drop the stop… they can't go together.

    Once upon a time, the various dashes had 'standard' usages but long ago, those gave way to very-much localized style manuals, often covering one publisher or even one publication alone.

    In nearly 20 years in publishing, I met nothing Shandean, nor any mere 'double-length dash', nor any 'conveying intentionality.'

     – Robbie Goodwin Mar 14 '24 at 22:39
  • The double-length "2-em dash" is indeed "a thing." So too the 3-em dash, seen in bibliographies. They have defined uses, and whether doubled or tripled ems, their distinctive appearance leaves no doubt that they are intended. The 2-em dash suggests/represents mostly missing letters but can also be full words, and, yes, it comes before a stop or final punctuation, so it's not normal to place one here. But if you're familiar with the text, it's clear the author is abandoning a line of thinking there, electing not to go on, even if more could be said. It (the 2-em variant) somewhat shows that. – Typothalamus Mar 16 '24 at 01:57