(This happens quite a lot here – hence we lower case "government" in all instances, much to - ahem - some people's chagrin.)
The reasoning behind the outlawing of the dash was that it was ugly. Perhaps so. However, there is a serious problem with substituting it with "to", which was demonstrated yesterday.
Defra's Milk Road Map commits farms to reduce water by 5% to 15% per litre of milk by 2010 and big dairies to cut water use by 30% by 2020.Aside from the fact that the layperson could interpret this to mean water content in milk, rather than the water footprint of milk, the figures here are open to interpretation. Does it aim to reduce water usage by 5% and bring it to a level of 15%, or to reduce water usage by between 5% and 15%?
I strongly suspect the latter, as the former doesn't make much sense. We are awaiting confirmation... Watch this space.*
Regarding the dash/to issue, I think in most instances both can be avoided by the use of "between xxx and xxx".
*Anyone who finds him or herself actually watching this space is advised to seek medical advice.
Personally I find a little dash or minus sign “-“ rather aesthetically pleasing to the eye not ugly at all.
ReplyDeleteIt takes all sorts I suppose, what treatment do you suggest by the way?
Probably electroconvulsive therapy would be most appropriate...
ReplyDeleteThe little dash says it all and does not need, as a matter of course, to be substituted by 'to' and 'ugly' is in the eye of the beholder. I see no problem at all with using the humble '-'.
ReplyDeleteah some support - I must fight against the "electro" treatment!
ReplyDeleteUnbate your breath, folks, I have the answer! "Between 5% and 15%". Or, as one might write were one permitted, "5%-15%".
ReplyDelete