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?---

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

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. ;-)

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. ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.