What is the correct usage on the em dash?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by andym

If you use zero width non-joiners you can get the best of both worlds ie:

‌&emdash;‌

Doesn't work in Book Designer.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by andym

If you use zero width non-joiners you can get the best of both worlds ie:

‌&emdash;‌

Good idea but I would not add the one before the dash. I don't think a dash at the start of a line looks very good. And if you use spaces around the dash then I would make the first one a nonbreaking space to avoid the chance that the mdash or ndash will start a line.

 

Dale

[JSWolf]

The "space en dash space" works ok.

[gmanacsa]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The "space en dash space" works ok.

Typically, the en dash is reserved for ranges, such as dates or page numbers. There's an excellent article on typography for the web (and by extension, reflowable ebook text including epub) at A List Apart:

http://www.alistapart.com/stories/emen/

[RWood]

It is also used to add material to a sentence where the inserted material is bounded on both sides by an em dash. It is stronger than a coma offset or a paren.

[andym]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Good idea but I would not add the one before the dash. I don't think a dash at the start of a line looks very good. And if you use spaces around the dash then I would make the first one a nonbreaking space to avoid the chance that the mdash or ndash will start a line.

 

Dale

Hmm I think you can argue it both ways. Grammatically, if you have a perenthesis then it makes more sense to have the dash with the words that are in the parenthesis - even if that means starting a line with a dash . If the dash is introducing a subordinate clause then if makes sense to have the dash with the main clause. The problem is that unless you have way too much time on your hands then you can't go through an entire book making these decisions so it's probably best, for better or worse, to simply leave it to chance. Using the two zero width non-joiners also avoids the risk of the software hyphenating the word and having a part word followed by a dash on the next line.

And the non-breaking space will show as a space. So its's better to use either a zero width joiner or nothing at all.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by andym

Hmm I think you can argue it both ways. Grammatically, if you have a perenthesis then it makes more sense to have the dash with the words that are in the parenthesis - even if that means starting a line with a dash . If the dash is introducing a subordinate clause then if makes sense to have the dash with the main clause. The problem is that unless you have way too much time on your hands then you can't go through an entire book making these decisions so it's probably best, for better or worse, to simply leave it to chance. Using the two zero width non-joiners also avoids the risk of the software hyphenating the word and having a part word followed by a dash on the next line.

And the non-breaking space will show as a space. So its's better to use either a zero width joiner or nothing at all.

To each their own I suppose. A dash represents a pause in the flow of the text and then pregnant pause is better represented on the end of a line than on the beginning of the next IMHO. It also matches the use of the hyphen. Having a dash on the beginning of the line breaks the flow, visually, of the paragraph. The case of the space in my posting was for editors that do not support the butted dash or does not support the zero width non-joiners. If you really look at the results on a page you can certainly tell visually about the impact of the dash. It is not the same as a parenthesis as it is grouped with a start and an end while a dash often does not have this construction although occasionally it does. Personally I will sometimes butt a dash to the preceding text and leave a space after it when I don't know what the tool will do. I do agree that that a non-joiner is the best when the tool supports it but again I will only put one after the dash, not on both sides.

Dale

[andym]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

It is not the same as a parenthesis as it is grouped with a start and an end while a dash often does not have this construction although occasionally it does.

Erm, I think you'll find that emdashes are very often used for parentheses.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by andym

Erm, I think you'll find that emdashes are very often used for parentheses.

True but not always and the physical look is certainly different and the effect on the user experience when reading them is different, in my case at least. If they were the same as parentheses then why not use parentheses. emdashes are sometimes used as a cross between parentheses and ellipses.

[hapax legomenon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Em_dash

I researched this issue a few months ago. My solution is to rarely use the em dash and use the en dash instead.
word ndash word
Why? To do the mdash correctly, you need to allow no spaces between the words. But that often is impractical for browsers and even word processors because it will join the words together when determining end of line.

Ndash doesn't look long enough, but actually it looks good enough in most fonts.

Odd fact: I type my fiction in a simple text editor which has an html conversion feature. It doesn't do the em/en dashes properly though, so I end up spelling the word "ndash" and then doing a global substitution. When you are doing that kind of substitution, it's easier to be able to substitute the ndash; entity for a word that is separated from the adjoining words. That's a use case specific to my editor; however, I imagine that it's just easier to work with ndashes in general.

[andym]

Originally Posted by hapax legomenon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Em_dash

I researched this issue a few months ago. My solution is to rarely use the em dash and use the en dash instead.
word ndash word
Why? To do the mdash correctly, you need to allow no spaces between the words. But that often is impractical for browsers and even word processors because it will join the words together when determining end of line.

Ndash doesn't look long enough, but actually it looks good enough in most fonts.

Odd fact: I type my fiction in a simple text editor which has an html conversion feature. It doesn't do the em/en dashes properly though, so I end up spelling the word "ndash" and then doing a global substitution. When you are doing that kind of substitution, it's easier to be able to substitute the ndash; entity for a word that is separated from the adjoining words. That's a use case specific to my editor; however, I imagine that it's just easier to work with ndashes in general.

Some publishers (Penguin I think) have standardised on en dashes. I must admit I'm still attached to em dashes in a nostalgic sort of way. ditto with curly quotes.

[IceHand]

I'm used to "word – word" (en dash) because that's most common in books around here in Germany. I think in the UK some publishers are going over to this format too, because it's looking better typographically (you know, with the black and white coverage ...). "Word—word" (em dash) is still most prevalent in English speaking countries though, I think, as it has been for ages.

[JSWolf]

I'm liking "word – word" as opposed to "word—word". I can tell the first is not just a dash and because of the spacing I read it as though it was — and not a -. Also, it makes less of a chance of "word—word" being too long to fit on the previous line when "word – word" would let the first word go on the line above.

[IceHand]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm liking "word – word" as opposed to "word—word". I can tell the first is not just a dash and because of the spacing I read it as though it was — and not a -. [...]

Well, in effect it is more or less the same as an em dash (it has the same meaning), so it's natural that you read it that way.
I prefer "word – word" too, btw.