If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use
"which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think "which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that." Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward" was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally) when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well). As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message ... What Herb said is he "change[s] incorrect whiches to thats," and that can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which." You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with "which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't be used with a non-restrictive). Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." On Sep 7, 9:26 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas anyway because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's writing and am not confident of the writer's intent... And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" in a nonrestrictive clause. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have commas around them, restrictive relatives don't. On Sep 7, 8:09 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor "which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very stilted to me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a second time! The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely fabricated invention. On Sep 6, 9:00 pm, "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: My clients trust my advice, but they don't always follow it--and drafts often go through a dozen or more contributors. So, when I receive drafts, I change "spacespace" into "space", change incorrect whiches to thats, and fix other stuff they might be inclined to ignore or change back. And THEN I turn tracking on. ;-) Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog:http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web:http://www.herbtyson.com "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in . .. Thank goodness my clients trust my advice (but then I'm an editor and not a developer). -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Beth Melton" wrote in message ... "Cheryl Flanders" wrote in message ... Yes. Several of my clients want two spaces after periods and the paying client has the last word. This says it all! I have a client who insists on two spaces between sentences too. Even if I don't agree I'm paid to do what they want. grin ~Beth Melton Microsoft Office MVP On Sep 3, 8:34 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: Is there a reason for typing two spaces after a sentence?--- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
Bloated post count = Bloated post count + 1
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote: Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think "which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that." Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward" was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally) when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well). As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent. On Sep 7, 9:26 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas anyway because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's writing and am not confident of the writer's intent... And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" in a nonrestrictive clause. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have commas around them, restrictive relatives don't. On Sep 7, 8:09 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor "which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very stilted to me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a second time! The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely fabricated invention. On Sep 6, 9:00 pm, "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: My clients trust my advice, but they don't always follow it--and drafts often go through a dozen or more contributors. So, when I receive drafts, I change "spacespace" into "space", change incorrect whiches to thats, and fix other stuff they might be inclined to ignore or change back. And THEN I turn tracking on. ;-) Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog:http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web:http://www.herbtyson.com "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in . .. Thank goodness my clients trust my advice (but then I'm an editor and not a developer). -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Beth Melton" wrote in message ... "Cheryl Flanders" wrote in message ... Yes. Several of my clients want two spaces after periods and the paying client has the last word. This says it all! I have a client who insists on two spaces between sentences too. Even if I don't agree I'm paid to do what they want. grin ~Beth Melton Microsoft Office MVP On Sep 3, 8:34 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: Is there a reason for typing two spaces after a sentence?--- -- -- Greg Maxey See my web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org for an eclectic collection of Word Tips. "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat." - TR |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
On Sep 7, 12:37*pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think "which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that." Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward" was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I Yes thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally) Do you have an example where "restrictive 'which'" could clarify an ambiguity? when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well). Yes, the compounding of "that"s is the most usual reason for using "which." But also a preponderance of th-sounds, or even too many short- a sounds in the paragraph. As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent. One of my professors (a native speaker of Hungarian who had lived in the US for 20 years when we first met, and in Paris for ten years before that), who was an excellent English stylist, said that the one thing she absolutely could not fathom was the restrictive/ nonrestrictive distinction. (In German, they put commas around both kinds. In French they far more often use participial phrases instead of relative clauses generally.) -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... What Herb said is he "change[s] incorrect whiches to thats," and that can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which." You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with "which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't be used with a non-restrictive). Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." On Sep 7, 9:26 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas anyway because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's writing and am not confident of the writer's intent... And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" in a nonrestrictive clause. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have commas around them, restrictive relatives don't. On Sep 7, 8:09 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor "which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very stilted to me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a second time! The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely fabricated invention. On Sep 6, 9:00 pm, "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: My clients trust my advice, but they don't always follow it--and drafts often go through a dozen or more contributors. So, when I receive drafts, I change "spacespace" into "space", change incorrect whiches to thats, and fix other stuff they might be inclined to ignore or change back.. And THEN I turn tracking on. ;-) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
No, I can't provide an example where "which" would clarify an ambiguity. It
just avoids commitment! In a situation where there is already a comma (for other reasons), so that it's not clear whether it's punctuated as restrictive or nonrestrictive, I can avoid coming down on one side or the other. Cowardly, I admit. g It's not just German, of course, that uses commas everywhere. You see this in eighteenth-century English as well. And not just with relative clauses. Were it not for the comma in the absolute construction "A well-regulated militia, being necessary...," there would be a lot less quibbling about "the right to bear arms." -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message ... On Sep 7, 12:37 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Okay, I guess I'm not seeing what we disagree on here. I prefer to use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and "that" for restrictive. Herb evidently has the same preference and so is changing "which" to "that" in restrictive clauses. You say that "which" is equally correct. I'm not disputing that, merely saying that I personally prefer "that" and think "which" sounds stilted. What I don't understand about your initial reply is what you consider "backward" about changing "which" to "that." Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean. What you were saying was "backward" was this statement: "The only time I'll use 'which' is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In the context, I Yes thought it was clear that what I meant was something like: "The only time I'll use 'which' [instead of 'that' in a restrictive clause] is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not." In other words, I invariably use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses and ordinarily use "that" for restrictive clauses but may use "which" in a restrictive clause if there is some ambiguity about it or (additionally) Do you have an example where "restrictive 'which'" could clarify an ambiguity? when there is another "that" in the sentence so close that the compounding of "thats" is awkward (and of course "that which" is an exception as well). Yes, the compounding of "that"s is the most usual reason for using "which." But also a preponderance of th-sounds, or even too many short- a sounds in the paragraph. As for ambiguity, sometimes an editor is faced with a situation in which an author has used "which" without a preceding comma. From previous experience with the author's prose and punctuation, the editor knows that the writer is not good with commas, so the absence of a comma doesn't necessary mean that the clause is restrictive, nor does the use of "which" guarantee that it's nonrestrictive. Often it's difficult to determine the writer's intent. One of my professors (a native speaker of Hungarian who had lived in the US for 20 years when we first met, and in Paris for ten years before that), who was an excellent English stylist, said that the one thing she absolutely could not fathom was the restrictive/ nonrestrictive distinction. (In German, they put commas around both kinds. In French they far more often use participial phrases instead of relative clauses generally.) -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... What Herb said is he "change[s] incorrect whiches to thats," and that can only mean changing restrictive relatives introduced by "which." You said you'd only use "which" when there's potential ambiguity as to whether it's restrictive or not -- but introducing a restrictive with "which" _could_ make it read as a non-restrictive (since "that" can't be used with a non-restrictive). Fowler would _prefer_ the distinction to be always observed, but he says (2nd ed. top of p. 626; repeated from the 1st ed.), "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers." On Sep 7, 9:26 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Yes, the commas should be an indicator, but often there are commas anyway because of some intervening parenthetical phrase/clause. The ambiguity rarely surfaces in my own writing, but when I'm editing someone else's writing and am not confident of the writer's intent... And I don't see how that's backward, since I would not ever use "that" in a nonrestrictive clause. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... I think that's backwards ... anyway non-restrictive relatives have commas around them, restrictive relatives don't. On Sep 7, 8:09 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I confess I'm with Herb on this one, though. UK English tends to favor "which" even for restrictive clauses, but it always sounds very stilted to me. The only time I'll use "which" is when there's ambiguity about whether the clause is restrictive or not. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in ... If I found you changing my "which"es to "that"s, I wouldn't hire you a second time! The "rule" that restrictive relatives must have "that" is a completely fabricated invention. On Sep 6, 9:00 pm, "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: My clients trust my advice, but they don't always follow it--and drafts often go through a dozen or more contributors. So, when I receive drafts, I change "spacespace" into "space", change incorrect whiches to thats, and fix other stuff they might be inclined to ignore or change back. And THEN I turn tracking on. ;-) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
Suzanne figured it out!
We are using Word 2003. Under Tools Options Compatibility, select Word 2003 rather than Custom. The problem resolved itself immediately. Kudos to Suzanne! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Can you send me a portion of one of the problem documents? I may not be able to figure out the problem, but I'd be interested in taking a look. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Thanks very much Herb. We use Word 2003, and full justification is turned off. All our docs have text aligned to the left. Any idea what those funky settings might be? The problem seems to be unique to one user. We all start docs from the same template, and no-one else's computer generates the elongated double spaces. However, when we open a doc that that one user created with the elongated double spaces on our own computer, the odd, elongated spacing persists within the doc, even in new sentenes and paragraphs that someone else subsequently adds. If this writer opens and works on a doc that someone else started, the double-spacing seems to behave normally. So, this is what I surmise. The template is fine. The problem originates with settings in one person's computer. Opening the doc on someone else's computer does not solve the problem. The problem seems to attach itself to a doc. As to others who have so generously weighed in on the double-vs.-single-space-at-the-end-of-a-sentence issue, regardless of what anyone thinks is proper or old-fashioned, Word is behaving strangely and I'd like to get it fixed. Any clues as to how to fix the problem would be greatly appreciated. "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: Some combinations of settings can produce funky stuff if full justification is being used. Does it still act odd if justification is turned off? What version of Word is being used? (If Word 2007, take a look at the Layout options in Word Options - Advanced, very bottom of the dialog. Are any of them turned on? All turned off is the default for Word 2007--if any are turned on, ask why, and see if they're related to how Word treats spaces.) Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web: http://www.herbtyson.com "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... A person on my team is getting funky spacing when he types a double space at the end of a sentence. Instead of using normal proportional spacing, Word stretches out the double space so that it looks more like a triple or quadruple space. Single spaces between words behave normally, as do all other characters. Is there some setting that causes elongated double spacing? To add a wrinkle, he has both Asian and Arabic characters installed on his computer. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
To follow up, the document had a "Custom" setting for Compatibility Options
with number of settings referring to Asian text; I suspect one of those was the culprit, but Kimmie and the document author found it easier to just change the settings wholesale, to Word 2003, which eliminated the problem. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Suzanne figured it out! We are using Word 2003. Under Tools Options Compatibility, select Word 2003 rather than Custom. The problem resolved itself immediately. Kudos to Suzanne! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Can you send me a portion of one of the problem documents? I may not be able to figure out the problem, but I'd be interested in taking a look. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Thanks very much Herb. We use Word 2003, and full justification is turned off. All our docs have text aligned to the left. Any idea what those funky settings might be? The problem seems to be unique to one user. We all start docs from the same template, and no-one else's computer generates the elongated double spaces. However, when we open a doc that that one user created with the elongated double spaces on our own computer, the odd, elongated spacing persists within the doc, even in new sentenes and paragraphs that someone else subsequently adds. If this writer opens and works on a doc that someone else started, the double-spacing seems to behave normally. So, this is what I surmise. The template is fine. The problem originates with settings in one person's computer. Opening the doc on someone else's computer does not solve the problem. The problem seems to attach itself to a doc. As to others who have so generously weighed in on the double-vs.-single-space-at-the-end-of-a-sentence issue, regardless of what anyone thinks is proper or old-fashioned, Word is behaving strangely and I'd like to get it fixed. Any clues as to how to fix the problem would be greatly appreciated. "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: Some combinations of settings can produce funky stuff if full justification is being used. Does it still act odd if justification is turned off? What version of Word is being used? (If Word 2007, take a look at the Layout options in Word Options - Advanced, very bottom of the dialog. Are any of them turned on? All turned off is the default for Word 2007--if any are turned on, ask why, and see if they're related to how Word treats spaces.) Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web: http://www.herbtyson.com "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... A person on my team is getting funky spacing when he types a double space at the end of a sentence. Instead of using normal proportional spacing, Word stretches out the double space so that it looks more like a triple or quadruple space. Single spaces between words behave normally, as do all other characters. Is there some setting that causes elongated double spacing? To add a wrinkle, he has both Asian and Arabic characters installed on his computer. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
The culprit was found to be the ‘Balance SBCS characters and DBCS characters’
option. Asian characters seem not to have anything to do with the problem. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: To follow up, the document had a "Custom" setting for Compatibility Options with number of settings referring to Asian text; I suspect one of those was the culprit, but Kimmie and the document author found it easier to just change the settings wholesale, to Word 2003, which eliminated the problem. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Suzanne figured it out! We are using Word 2003. Under Tools Options Compatibility, select Word 2003 rather than Custom. The problem resolved itself immediately. Kudos to Suzanne! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Can you send me a portion of one of the problem documents? I may not be able to figure out the problem, but I'd be interested in taking a look. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Thanks very much Herb. We use Word 2003, and full justification is turned off. All our docs have text aligned to the left. Any idea what those funky settings might be? The problem seems to be unique to one user. We all start docs from the same template, and no-one else's computer generates the elongated double spaces. However, when we open a doc that that one user created with the elongated double spaces on our own computer, the odd, elongated spacing persists within the doc, even in new sentenes and paragraphs that someone else subsequently adds. If this writer opens and works on a doc that someone else started, the double-spacing seems to behave normally. So, this is what I surmise. The template is fine. The problem originates with settings in one person's computer. Opening the doc on someone else's computer does not solve the problem. The problem seems to attach itself to a doc. As to others who have so generously weighed in on the double-vs.-single-space-at-the-end-of-a-sentence issue, regardless of what anyone thinks is proper or old-fashioned, Word is behaving strangely and I'd like to get it fixed. Any clues as to how to fix the problem would be greatly appreciated. "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: Some combinations of settings can produce funky stuff if full justification is being used. Does it still act odd if justification is turned off? What version of Word is being used? (If Word 2007, take a look at the Layout options in Word Options - Advanced, very bottom of the dialog. Are any of them turned on? All turned off is the default for Word 2007--if any are turned on, ask why, and see if they're related to how Word treats spaces.) Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web: http://www.herbtyson.com "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... A person on my team is getting funky spacing when he types a double space at the end of a sentence. Instead of using normal proportional spacing, Word stretches out the double space so that it looks more like a triple or quadruple space. Single spaces between words behave normally, as do all other characters. Is there some setting that causes elongated double spacing? To add a wrinkle, he has both Asian and Arabic characters installed on his computer. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
elongated double space
I think that *is* an Asian character option, though. According to
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/288792, that option is "Not used in U.S. English Word." See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBCS -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message news The culprit was found to be the ‘Balance SBCS characters and DBCS characters’ option. Asian characters seem not to have anything to do with the problem. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: To follow up, the document had a "Custom" setting for Compatibility Options with number of settings referring to Asian text; I suspect one of those was the culprit, but Kimmie and the document author found it easier to just change the settings wholesale, to Word 2003, which eliminated the problem. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Suzanne figured it out! We are using Word 2003. Under Tools Options Compatibility, select Word 2003 rather than Custom. The problem resolved itself immediately. Kudos to Suzanne! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Can you send me a portion of one of the problem documents? I may not be able to figure out the problem, but I'd be interested in taking a look. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA http://word.mvps.org "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... Thanks very much Herb. We use Word 2003, and full justification is turned off. All our docs have text aligned to the left. Any idea what those funky settings might be? The problem seems to be unique to one user. We all start docs from the same template, and no-one else's computer generates the elongated double spaces. However, when we open a doc that that one user created with the elongated double spaces on our own computer, the odd, elongated spacing persists within the doc, even in new sentenes and paragraphs that someone else subsequently adds. If this writer opens and works on a doc that someone else started, the double-spacing seems to behave normally. So, this is what I surmise. The template is fine. The problem originates with settings in one person's computer. Opening the doc on someone else's computer does not solve the problem. The problem seems to attach itself to a doc. As to others who have so generously weighed in on the double-vs.-single-space-at-the-end-of-a-sentence issue, regardless of what anyone thinks is proper or old-fashioned, Word is behaving strangely and I'd like to get it fixed. Any clues as to how to fix the problem would be greatly appreciated. "Herb Tyson [MVP]" wrote: Some combinations of settings can produce funky stuff if full justification is being used. Does it still act odd if justification is turned off? What version of Word is being used? (If Word 2007, take a look at the Layout options in Word Options - Advanced, very bottom of the dialog. Are any of them turned on? All turned off is the default for Word 2007--if any are turned on, ask why, and see if they're related to how Word treats spaces.) Herb Tyson MS MVP Author of the Word 2007 Bible Blog: http://word2007bible.herbtyson.com Web: http://www.herbtyson.com "Kimmie B" wrote in message ... A person on my team is getting funky spacing when he types a double space at the end of a sentence. Instead of using normal proportional spacing, Word stretches out the double space so that it looks more like a triple or quadruple space. Single spaces between words behave normally, as do all other characters. Is there some setting that causes elongated double spacing? To add a wrinkle, he has both Asian and Arabic characters installed on his computer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|