On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:20:14 +0100, Chris Croughton
<chris@keristor.net> said:
> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:28:53 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
> > A British dictionary, _The New Shorter Oxford_, recognizes
> > "no-one" as a less frequent spelling, but an American
> > dictionary, _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate_, doesn't mention
> > it.
> It's been used hyphenated in the UK for a long time, although that has
> been considered "not correct" in some circles (like the "Oxford comma"
> is's a matter of debate between those who do and those who don't like
> it, with neither side giving way).
> I don't recall at the moment whether the hyphenated form is in either of
> the Concise Oxford dictionaries I have, and don't have them to hand,
> next time I'm back home I'll check (as I recall Fowler mentioned it as
> well).
The term "Fowler" is used to refer to Henry Fowler's _A
Dictionary of Modern English Usage_ from the 1920s, to Sir
Ernest Gowers's' 1930s revision of that work, and rather
inappropriately to Burchfield's _The New Fowler's Modern
English Usage_ (1996).
In the 1920s work it says, discussing compounds of "one"
under "one 1"
The forms recommended are _anyone_, _everyone_,
_no-one_, _someone_.
The Gowers revision says under "one 2"
The forms recommended are _anyone_, _everyone_,
_no one_, _someone_.
So Gowers quietly disagreed with Henry Fowler and
recommended "no one" rather than "no-one".
Burchfield says
no one - no person, nobody. Thus spelt (no
hyphen).
_The Oxford Style Manual_ (copyright Oxford University Press
2003), the modern descendant of _Hart's Rules_ says in its
_Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors_
no one - no person (two words) but "nobody"
But _The Chambers Dictionary_ (1993) has
no one or no-one - nobody
For what it's worth, the _Concise Oxford 8th Edition_ (1990)
had "no one" with no mention of the hyphenated version. But
I understand there have been ninth, tenth, and eleventh
editions since then.
The online _Oxford English Dictionary_ has an entry for "no
one" and no entry for "no-one". However, under "no one"
there are a couple of quotations using the hyphen, with the
latest dated 1988. The earliest quotation for the
unhyphenated version is dated 1538; for the hyphenated,
1851.
A sort of diachronic look from the American point of view
can be had by looking in _Webster's New International
Dictionary_ in three editons (1909, 1930s, and 1960s):
The 1909 edition has no entry for "no-one" or "no one", but
in its definition of "nobody" it says in part "no one".
The 1930s (second) edition has the entry "no one" or
"no-one".
The 1960s (third) edition has an entry for "no one" with no
mention of "no-one".
Merriam-Webster's latest, the _11th Collegiate_ (2002) has
"no one" with no mention of "no-one".
My own feeling is that it's too bad "no-one" seems to have
fallen by the wayside. It could provide a useful
distinction between "no-one" meaning "nobody", and "no one"
meaning "not a single". (Compare "No-one is respondible"
and "No one person is responsible".)
But I'm glad "noone" appears to have no support from any
responsible authority.
|
|