An Eye-opening Experience

There are two dictionaries I frequently use. One is Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (not my favorite, but it’s on my computer and is very convenient). The second is Merriam-Webster Online (my favorite, but you have to go online to use it—not always convenient). These two dictionaries do not always agree on matters of spelling and hyphenation, demonstrating that “the dictionary” is not necessarily the ultimate authority on such matters.

Yesterday, for example, I came upon the compound “eye opener” in my editing. This looked wrong to me. I was certain it should be hyphenated (“eye-opener”) but wanted to check the dictionary to be extra sure. I looked first to the Random House version (for convenience) and was surprised to see the compound not hyphenated but closed (“eyeopener”). I immediately rebelled. How could this be right?

Merriam-Webster saved me. There the compound was hyphenated, just as I thought it should be. I don’t need to tell you which dictionary I followed.

This morning I decided to see what The Chicago Manual of Style has to say about weird closed compounds:

7.84 The trend toward closed compounds. With frequent use, open or hyphenated compounds tend to become closed (on line to on-line to online). Chicago’s general adherence to Webster does not preclude occasional exceptions when the closed spellings have become widely accepted, pronunciation and readability are not at stake, and keystrokes can be saved.

The key phrase here is “pronunciation and readability are not at stake.” I don’t believe “eyeopener” is doing anything for readability. When I read “eyeopener,” my eyes go straight to “yeop” and get stuck there. It doesn’t look like a real word—at least not an English word. “Eyeopener” hurts my eyes.

And so, once again I will stick with my best friends, Merriam-Webster and Chicago. They never hurt my eyes.