Why the Wall Street Journal Embraces the Compound Hyphen

As readers of Sprachgefuhl know, I favor the compound hyphen. It turns out that I’m not alone. The great Paul R. Martin, a longtime editor at the Wall Street Journal who served as the paper’s final authority on language, was also a big fan. Here’s how William Safire, who wrote the “On Language” column in the New York Times Magazine, described Martin’s meticulousness:

.............................................................................

“Who is it in the press that calls on me?” asks Julius Caesar in the second scene of the first act of Shakespeare’s play.

It is Paul R. Martin, assistant managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, known to his colleagues as the Great Hyphenator. He commends me for defending the use of the hyphen in kitchen-table issue “as befits a compound adjective modifying the noun issue,” but then takes me to task for using health care reform with the compound adjective health care naked of hyphenation.

All Americans deserve health care, but does all adjectival health care deserve a hyphen? Usagists disagree.

Mr. Martin does a sprightly flier on usage for the Journal, called Style & Substance, along the lines of the occasional Winners & Sinners that used to be put out by usageers at the New York Times. (I’m just trying out usageer, as an alternative to usagist; it has a three-musketeers quality, and usage diktats take courage and loyalty to a tight little band.)

In it, he asks us which of the following compound-modifier constructions (thereby using compound-modifier as a compound modifier for the first time in the history of grammar) should be hyphenated.

Mr. Martin’s brain-teasing list: “mutual fund manager; hard line faction; health care program [we know that one]; fast food chain; drug price increases; credit card operations; page one article; variable annuity buyers; tax deferred annuities [you can tell what paper he works for]; real estate agent; high school student; natural gas pipeline.”

His answer: “All of the above.”

He’s a hyphenation purist; I’m not. With health care reform, I’ll go along with New York Times style that calls for no hyphens, as in sales tax bill, when the meaning is clear without them. I disagree with the tendency of many Times editors to forgo the hyphen whenever nouns are used together as a compound modifier. Use no hyphen in health care reform, but because it adds to clarity, put a hyphen in kitchen-table issue. A hyphen is a tool. We own the tools; the tools don’t own us.

But what about Mr. Martin’s title, assistant managing editor? Should that have a hyphen? He says no: “I assist the managing editor; I don’t assistant-manage the editor.”

burglary. robbery

Do you know the difference between a “robbery” and a “burglary”?

Both are acts of thefts, but they’re not interchangeable.

In a “robbery,” something is taken from another person.

In a “burglary,” someone enters a building or other space.

So, you can rob your neighbor, but you can only burglarize his house.

[Vol. 35, No. 1: Paul Martin Sr.]

me. I.

I’m stealing this excellent answer from Grammarly:

Is it me or I?

Remove the other noun and say the sentence aloud. If it sounds wrong, then switch the pronoun.

Correct: “Did you invite Billy and me?”

Explanation: “Did you invite Billy?” “Did you invite me?“” They both sound correct, so me is correct.

Correct: “Should Billy and I go to the store?”

Explanation: “Should Billy go to the store?” “Should I go to the store?” Again, they both sound correct, so I is correct.

Incorrect: “Sally and me sent gifts.”

Explanation: “Sally sent gifts.” “Me sent gifts.” “Me sent gifts” doesn’t sound right, so substitute I:

“Sally and I sent gifts.”

fewer. less.

I’m stealing this excellent answer from Grammarly:

What’s the difference between fewer and less?

Can you count the items? Use fewer.

Otherwise, use less.

Thus:

1. We interview fewer than 20 applicants per year.

2. I have less time to read this year than I’d like.

a half dozen. half a dozen

Here’s a question I posed this morning to Paul Stregevsky:

Q: Which phrase do you prefer?

1. a half dozen

2. half a dozen

For what it’s worth, “a half dozen” returns 1,580,000,000 results, while “half a dozen” returns 204,000,000.

A: Garner's Modern English partly supports Google::

Half a dozen and a half dozen. For this noun phrase, either half a dozen or a half dozen is good form. The predominant form in print sources has always been half a dozen.

So: To follow tradition, use half a dozen. To embrace the vernacular present and the printed future, use a half dozen.

Derek Thompson Shows How to Contextualize a Statistic

One of my favorite writers, Derek Thompson, of the Atlantic, does a superb job of bringing clarity to a statistic that most readers would otherwise skip right over. Here’s Derek:

“In June, researchers from N.Y.U., Stanford, and Microsoft published a paper with a title that made their position on the matter unambiguous: ‘Digital Addiction.’ In closing, they reported that ‘self-control problems cause 31% of social media use.’ Think about that: About one in three minutes spent on social media is time we neither hoped to use beforehand nor feel good about in retrospect.”

There’s a lot to like here:

1. The transition, “Think about that.” (Most of us would use a cliché such as “in others words.”)

2. The conversion of a percentage (31%) into a fraction (one in three). (This is one of the tips I teach in my workshop on humanizing big numbers.)

3. The vivid and concrete translation from “self-control problems” to “time we neither hoped to use beforehand nor feel good about in retrospect.”

Finally, Derek packed all these tricks into a single sentence. Well-done!

who. that.

Q: Consider this sentence from the New York Times — specifically, the text that comes after the colon (I added the emphasis):

“The fact that the bill could slightly add to the federal deficit did not dissuade House Democrats from voting for it, in part because the analysis boiled down to a dispute over a single line item: How much the I.R.S. would collect by cracking down on people and companies that dodge large tax bills.”

Now, if I use the word “people” (or refer to a person), then grammar demands that the word “who” follow. By contrast, inanimate objects (basically, everything else, including companies) get “that” or “which.”

But what happens, as in the above example, when a sentence contains both “people” and “companies”? Does “people” always predominate? Or is the last pronoun (in this case, “companies”) the deciding factor?

A: In many “either/or” constructions, the inflected word that must apply to each element is governed by the element listed last. Thus:

“companies and people who...”


or

“people and companies that...”

This is true, for example, when the associated verb must be governed by the subject’s grammatical person (“If either he or I am chosen, the other will concede”) or grammatical number (“If either they or he shows up, I’m leaving”).

Admittedly, a construction like these can strike the ear as awkward, and a careful writer might avoid it by adding a “modal auxiliary,” or “helping verb,” like this:

“If either they or he should show up, I’m leaving.”

each other. one another

each other: two entities

one another: three or more entities

farther. further

farther: physical distances

further: figurative distances

have to. need to.

Here’s a question I posed this morning to Paul Stregevsky:

Q: Do you take issue with the colloquial phrase “have to” (instead of “need to”)?

A: No, I don’t. Technically, they denote the same thing. But as you suggest, they have different connotations.

In most contexts, “have to” sounds a bit less harsh; it connotes, “This is what you gotta do, but hey — don’t blame me. Blame the system.”

yet again. again

When should you use “yet again” and when should you use “again”? (The same question applies to “once again” and “again.”)

Until recently, I didn’t see a difference. But thanks to the eagle eye of Paul Stregevsky, I now appreciate that “once again” and “yet again” work better on second repetition.

Consider the following sentences:

1. I send an email. Three weeks pass. No reply. I follow-up. Again, no reply. I follow-up once more. Again, no reply.

2. I send an email. Three weeks pass. No reply. I follow-up. Again, no reply. I follow-up once more. Yet again, no reply.

Why is #2 better? Because by adding the word “yet,” I stretch out the key phrase, “No reply,” and make it linger. That additional moment before the beat creates emphasis.

Why We Shouldn’t Substitute “Their” for “Its”

Consider the following sentence:

“Here are 10 ways Apple persuades readers with their words.”

Does “their” refer to “Apple,” or to “readers”?

Probably “Apple,” since if “their” meant “readers,” we’d expect to see “their own words.” But we don’t know for sure, and that’s a problem.

By contrast, if you change “their” to “its,” the answer is immediately clear:

“Here are 10 ways Apple persuades readers with its words.”

Never leave your antecedents vague.

continuous. continual

I'm reprinting the below blog post from the Magic Show, a subscription-based website from my good friend and colleague Mike Long. The Magic Show provides daily tips and inspiration about how to perfect your writing.

“Continuous” means “without ceasing.”

“Continual” means “stopping and starting” or “regularly.”

You’ve been breathing continuously since you were born. You’ve been complaining about your college loans continually since 2007.

On a hot day in July, your air conditioner runs continuously, but the bill for the electricity arrives continually, and all summer long.

Politics provides continuous embarrassment. Political campaigns, mercifully, evoke such a feeling only continually.

Will knowing this distinction make a big difference in your writing? Not much — by itself. But as you accumulate this kind of thing, your writing will become more confident and precise, and therefore more persuasive.

The best reason to learn this stuff? It improves not just the way you write. It sharpens the way you think.

compare with. compare to.

The difference between compared with and compared to is nuanced, and while many have tried to explain it, the best explanation I’ve found comes from the Daily Writing Tips website:

If the differences are important — if you want to emphasize the differences — then say compared with.

So:

When you compare Trump with Mussolini, you’re emphasizing the differences between them. You’re saying that Trump and Mussolini are different.

When you compare Trump to Mussolini, you’re emphasizing the similarities between them. You’re saying that Trump and Mussolini are similar.

Does the Lack of Parallel Structure Bother You?

The following sentence appeared recently in the New York Times:

“Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, are also involved in the selection process.”

As an editor, I’m bothered by the lack of consistency here: Whereas Blanken’s title precedes his name, Sullivan’s title comes after his name. Thus, I would tweak the wording as follows:

“Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan are also involved in the selection process.”

Yet when presented with this edit, my colleague Paul Stregevsky raised an interesting point that never occurred to me:

“When a major publication like the New York Times goes out of its way to avoid an easy parallel structure, we should ask ourselves, What were they thinking? What they were thinking, I think, is this: It’s obvious that there’s only one Secretary of State. But it’s not as obvious that there’s only one national security advisor. That’s why they needed to flip the sequence — so they could say ‘the’ national security advisor. I could be wrong, but I’ve made the same decision for very similar reasons.”

In response, I offered the following middle ground:

“The National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken are also involved in the selection process.”

Paul’s response is again worth quoting:

“That would satisfy the concern that I attributed to their editors. Of course, it risks making the Secretary of State seem like the second fiddle. As the saying goes, there are no solutions; only trade-offs.”

So there you have it: Two word nerds discussing the possible motives behind not editing a single, seemingly unobjectionable sentence.

If you’re as semantically enthralled as we are, let us know what the editor in you would do.👇

This Is How to Write With Energy and Specificity


“Netflix currently functions, by any measure, at a world-class level. As the year of the pandemic upends entertainment companies—Disney’s crippled theme parks, Warner Bros.’ furloughed blockbusters, AMC’s shuttered theaters—Netflix is having a moment. A moment of prestige, with a record 160 Emmy Award nominations, eclipsing the long-dominant HBO, and more Oscar nods than any other media company. A moment of influence, adding almost as many customers in the first six months of the year as in all of 2019, extending its reach to nearly 200 million subscribers in 190 countries. And a moment of profits, with sales up 25% year over year, earnings more than doubled and its stock up 50%, as most of the market gyrates wildly just to scratch back to even. Recent market cap: $213.3 billion.”

Plexiglas. plexiglass

Plexiglas is the trademark product (uppercase, one s).

plexiglass is the generic (lowercase, a second s).

Thanks, Wall Street Journal!

Do You Make These Mistakes in English?

1. Two Cents 
Wrong
Here’s my two sense.

Right
Here’s my two cents.

2. Faze
Wrong
The bird didn’t phase me.

Right
The bird didn’t faze me. 

3. Once in a While
Wrong
I think once and a while.

Right
I think once in a while.

4. Home in On
Wrong
Let’s hone in on that issue.

Right
Let’s home in on that issue.

5. Beck and Call
Wrong
She served at his beckon call.

Right
She served at his beck and call.

6. Could Have
Wrong
I could of done the job.

Right
I could have done the job.

7. All Right
Wrong
The kids are alright.

Right
The kids are all right.

8. Flaunt
Wrong
I flaunted the norms.

Right
I flouted the norms.

font. typeface

A “typeface” and a “font” are not synonyms.

A “typeface” is a broad family, like Arial.

A “font” is a specific style, like Arial in italics.

Which Headline Is Better?

Here’s how most scientists are trained to write headlines:

The Effect of Alcohol on Renal Functions

What’s wrong with this? It’s straightforward and simple, right?

It is. The problem is, it’s also static and forgettable.

Here’s how a writer who cares as much about science as he does about impact would edit the headline:

How Alcohol Affects Renal Functions

Why is headline #2 better? Because it has a verb. And sentences with verbs tend to be more emphatic.

calendarize

calendarize (v): to add to a calendar

ticking time bomb vs. ticking bomb

I just wrote the phrase, “Ticking time bomb,” then I stopped. Isn’t the word “time” redundant? What other thing could “ticking” refer to?

“Finance Professional” vs. “Financial Professional”

I recently delivered a writing workshop to a group of bankers. As is my wont, I tweaked the title of my presentation to include the phrase, “For Financial Professionals.” My host changed this to, “For Finance Professionals.”

Which phrase is better?

On the basis of grammar, both are fine. Lest you think “finance” isn’t a noun, English allows a noun to be pressed into service as an adjective. For example, we say a “woman president.” In that case, “woman” is an “attributive” noun. Ditto for “finance” in the phrase “finance professional.”

For the basis of usage, I turned to Google Trends, which catalogs keyword searches around the world. It turns out that “financial professional” is significantly more common than “finance professional.”

On the other hand, to complicate matters, I can’t think of a country that has a “financial minister”; everyone has a “finance minister.”

So, which phrase is better?

Either is fine.

Commas Are Tricky

Wrong
The program evaluates your computer system, and then copies the files.

Right
1. The program evaluates your computer system and then copies the files.

2. The program evaluates your computer system, and then it copies the files.

3. The program evaluates your computer system, then copies the files.

4. The program evaluates your computer system; then it copies the files.

How a 6-Word Rewrite From Mister Rogers Can Make You a Better Writer

Fred Rogers (aka Mister Rogers) employed an in-house writer named Hedda Sharapan. At one point, Rogers enlisted Sharapan to write a manual to teach doctors how to talk to children. The journalist Tom Junod recounts what happened next:

“She worked hard on it, using all her education and experience in the field of child development, but when she handed him her opening, he crossed out what she’d written and replaced it with six words: ‘You were a child once too.’”

Those six small words contain three big lessons for writers:

1. Make Things Personal
The first word a reader sees? It’s “you.” Writing is an intimate transaction between two people; you’ll succeed to the extent that you address your reader directly.

2. Befriend Brevity
No doubt, the rewrite is a fraction of the original word count. Yet the rewrite is also no doubt more emphatic and more vigorous. As every writing guide anywhere has always advised: Shorter is usually stronger. (And more memorable.)

3. Use Familiar Examples
Specialists often get tunnel vision. They get so absorbed by research or statistics that they forget to make their work relatable. But as Rogers knew, one of the best ways to draw a reader in is to draw a connection between your point and his life. You can make even the densest concept resonate if you analogize it to something that’s immediately familiar.

Mass Nouns vs. Count Nouns

Here’s a sentence I wrote:

“Don’t confuse attention for alliance.”

What’s wrong with this? Nothing as far as I can tell. Of course, that’s why I use an editor — thank you, Paul Stregevsky! Paul has sharpened my language and taught me more about writing with vigor than anyone else.

Paul’s eagle eye spotted that I had compared a “mass” noun (attention) with a “count” noun (alliance). I didn’t even know there were different types of nouns! Paul explained the difference as follows:

“A mass noun is a noun that can’t be preceded by an article (a or an). Applesauce is a mass noun; apple is a count noun.”

Thus, I changed the sentence as follows:

“Don’t confuse attention for agreement.”

That’s much better (even if you never knew why).

Is the Phrase “Critically Important” Redundant?

“Critical” and “important” mean the same thing.

Therefore, to use the two terms together — “critically important,” as many people do — seems redundant.

Why not just say “critical” or “vital”?

I suspect the answer is because “critically important” is emphatic in a way that “critical” by itself is not. “Critically important” sounds more urgent and more serious than “critical.”

coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2. Covid-19

Thanks to Marco Arment for clarifying this:

1. “Coronavirus” is a category of many viruses, not just this one.

2. This virus is “SARS-CoV-2.”

3. The disease it causes in humans is “Covid-19.”

4. Before “SARS-CoV-2” was standardized, the virus was provisionally named “2019 novel coronavirus,” or “2019-nCov.”

The Wall Street Journal adds:

Coronavirus refers to the virus, not the illness. We have started using Covid-19 more to refer to the disease, as the term has become more familiar.”

When Should You Use a Comma?

Consider these two guidelines from Michelle Carey’s book. Developing Quality Technical Information: A Handbook for Writers and Editors (IBM Press):

1. When two or more sentences are joined by a coordinate conjunction, use a comma before the conjunction:

Wrong
The task was completed yet some data can’t be processed.

Right
The task was completed, yet some data can’t be processed.

2. If the second half of the sentence doesn’t have a subject and complete verb, don’t use a comma:

Wrong
The configuration manager deploys the application, and removes cookies.

Right
The configuration manager deploys the application and removes cookies.

Which Headline Is Correct?

1. Harvey Weinstein Will Be Sentenced to Between 5 and 29 Years in Prison

2. Harvey Weinstein Will Be Sentenced to a Prison Sentence of 5 to 29 Years

My colleague Paul says #2, because “sentenced to” should not be followed by an adverbial phrase. Rather, it should be followed by a noun or a noun phrase.

Are You Gen X, Y, or Z?

Thank you to the Wall Street Journal’s Style & Substance column for clarifying which label means what.

baby boomers

Lowercase when writing about those born during the bulge in U.S. population growth that appeared after World War II, known as the baby boom and generally considered by demographers to be the 19 years from 1946 through 1964.

Generation X

The term generally applies to people born in the U.S. from 1965 to 1980, after the baby boom. Also: Gen X and Gen Xers.

Generation Y

The term generally applies to people born in the U.S. from about 1981 until about 1996. The group is better known as millennials.

millennials

Lowercase when writing about the generation less commonly known as Generation Y, which is generally defined as people born from about 1981 until 1996. (However, as discussed before, millennials can often come off as snide shorthand, a trap we don’t want to fall into.)

Generation Z

The term generally applies to people born in the U.S. from about 1997 until 2012.

Generation Alpha

The term generally applies to people born in the U.S. after about 2012.

What if today’s typical corporate exec rewrote the Declaration of Independence?

Here’s what it might look like:

Jargon Has Consequences

You’ve heard me criticize jargon and extol simplicity. Now there’s research that makes the case even stronger.

According to a new study, people who read jargon-laced text walk away less interested in the given topic than people who read the same text but in plain language.

The study (which focused on science writing) found that jargon affects us in two specific ways:

1. Jargon makes us feel less informed about the topic at hand.

2. Jargon makes us feel less qualified to discuss the topic.

In short: Complex language leads readers to tune out.

By contrast, says the study’s lead author, “We’ve found that when you use more colloquial language, people report more interest, more ability to understand, and more confidence.”

What would Churchill’s soaring oratory look like in the hands of today’s typical corporate exec?

Here’s a fun comparison:



Are Verbs Always Better Than Adverbs?

Over at Self-Publishing School, Bella Rose Pope presents these two sentences:

1. I gripped the steering wheel firmly.

2. I clenched the steering wheel.

Pope says #2 is better, because a strong verb (“clench”) is better than a verb plus an adverb (“gripped firmly”).

I’m not sure I agree. What do you think?

nutshell

nutshell (v): to simplify a topic

Let me nutshell this for you.

How to Spot Bad Headlines Before They Make Your Visitors Bounce: An Intro to Easy Copy Validation [Copyhackers]

Which sentence is correct?

Which sentence is correct?

1. One in 12 people in our neighborhood don’t have a job.

2. One in 12 people in our neighborhood doesn’t have a job.

In my view, while #1 sounds right, #2 appears on paper to be right. Yet I can’t explain why.

So I asked my pal Paul, who said the following:

Two conflicting rules are at play here. Under one rule, the grammatical number is determined strictly by syntax:

“One in 12 people doesn’t.”

Under the other rule (which is called “synesis”), grammatical number is governed by the semantics — the sense:

“One in 12 people don’t.”

So which is better, I asked?

As usual, Paul suggested a rewrite that transcends the problem:

“One in every 12 people in our neighborhood doesn’t have a job.”

communications. communication

communication: the act of communicating

communications: the means of (or technology for) communicating

So:

“Facebook is a communications platform that facilitates communication.”

Is it “catercorner,” or “kitty-corner”?

Dan Saltzstein, a longtime senior editor at the New York Times, says it’s “cater-corner.”

Merriam-Webster disagrees. The entry for “catercorner” says “catercorner” is a “less common variant” of “kitty-corner.”

Is it “champing at the bit,” or “chomping at the bit”?

Dan Saltzstein, a longtime senior editor at the New York Times, says it’s “champing.”

Which Sentence Is Best?

1. Outsiders use language in a different way than insiders do.

2. Outsiders use language differently than insiders do.

3. Outsiders use language differently from insiders.

They all are, though I favor #2.

What do you think?

Does a Dash in a Headline Affect the Capitalization of the Next Word?

Thank you to the Wall Street Journal’s always-interesting “Style and Substance” column for clarifying an issue I’ve never been sure about:

Which headline is correct (focus on the word “and”)?

1. Dow Ends Unchanged — and That’s News

2. Dow Ends Unchanged — And That’s News

According to the Journal, #1 is correct:

“We lowercase words after a dash if they are normally lowercased in headlines (but uppercase after a colon).”

gantlet. gauntlet. gamut

Thank you to the Wall Street Journal’s always-interesting “Style and Substance” column for clarifying the following nuance:

You run the gantlet, not the gauntlet.

gantlet is a literal or figurative flogging ordeal. “The politician ran a gantlet of criticism for his immigration policy.”

gauntlet is a medieval glove thrown down to issue a challenge. If you “take up the gauntlet,” you accept the challenge. If you “throw down the gauntlet,” you pick a fight.

A gamut is a complete range or extent. “The film library contained the gamut of genres from classics to children’s movies.”

How to Handle a Twitter Handle

If I told you that my Twitter handle is “@jrick,” most people would pronounce this as “at J-R-I-C-K.”

I think that’s wrong. I think the “@” is a given, so I’d just say, “J-R-I-C-K.”

Apparently, I’m alone. Even the Wall Street Journal, in its latest “Style and Substance” column, pronounces the “@” symbol.

Specifically, whereas I would write, “Follow me on Twitter at @jrick,” they’d write, “Follow me on Twitter @jrick.”

Does the Phrase “All of” Bother You?

I posed the following question to my colleague, Paul Stregevsky.

Question
Consider the following sentence:

“Deliveries have shown big potential, making up almost all of Whole Foods’s growth.”

As an editor, I would strike “of.”

What do you think? Would you let it be?

Answer
I would let it be, and so would Bryan Garner. From Garner’s Modern English Usage:

In two circumstances, all of is the better choice.

1. When a pronoun follows “all of them.”

2. When a possessive noun follows. For example: “Beyond all of Jones’ ego-stroking maneuvers and incessant need for attention, this is what he is talking about.”

Of course, because this is Bryan Garner, he points out two exceptions to #1: When the pronoun is serving as an adjective — either possessive (“all my belongings”) or demonstrative (“all that jazz”).

​Do You Know the Difference Between “Bold” and “Italics”?

​Technically, bold and italics communicate the same point: Emphasis. But they’re not interchangeable. In fact, in nearly every kind of professional writing, bold and italics are used in distinctly different ways.

Italics are used to emphasize a certain word or phrase within your body text. For example: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

To be sure, bold is sometimes used for the same purpose, but only on the names of important people or companies. For example, this is how gossip columns or ​trade publications work.

By far, the more common use of bold is on headings.

Are you confused? Do you disagree? I welcome your questions and comments.

Gerunds Take the Possessive

Which sentence is correct?

1. Our withdrawal depends on Turkey pledging not to attack the Kurds.

2. Our withdrawal depends on Turkey’s pledging not to attack the Kurds.

#2 is correct, for a simple reason: Because gerunds (in this case, Turkey) take the possessive.

Similarly, which of these sentences is correct?

1. I appreciate you taking time to talk with me.

2. I appreciate your taking time to talk with me.

Again, #2 is correct, for a simple reason: Because gerunds (in this case, taking) take the possessive.

What Does the "Fold" Suffix Actually Mean?

The Wall Street Journal explains something I could never quite figure out:

Twofold, fourfold, ninefold. But use numerals and a hyphen for numbers 10 and over: 12-fold.

Remember that -fold means times. So an increase from 1 to 2 is a twofold increase (1 times 2), or a 100% increase. An increase from $5 to $25 is a fivefold increase (we view -fold increase as an idiom that includes the base amount), but a 400% increase.

The use of -fold means your percentage amount and your fold amount will be off by one degree.

When in doubt, try to avoid the -fold construction entirely.

Sarah Koenig Can Write!

“Koenig writes like real people talk. Instead of telling us about ‘the defendant,’ she describes ‘the cookie baker’ facing a felony conviction for offering a marijuana cookie to an unknowing acquaintance. The man who assaulted a woman at a bar becomes the ‘ass slapper.’”

Lessons for Writers From Serial’s Year in a Courthouse