RULE IV.—­ELLIPSES.

When two or more compounds are connected in one sentence, none of them should be split to make an ellipsis of half a word.  Thus, “six or seventeen” should not be said for “sixteen or seventeen;” nor ought we to say, “calf, goat, and sheepskins” for “calfskins, goatskins, and sheepskins” In the latter instance, however, it might be right to separate all the words; as in the phrase, “soup, coffee, and tea houses.”—­Liberator, x, 40.

RULE V.—­THE HYPHEN.

When the parts of a compound do not fully coalesce, as to-day, to-night, to-morrow; or when each retains its original accent, so that the compound has more than one, or one that is movable, as first-born, hanger-on, laughter-loving, garlic-eater, butterfly-shell, the hyphen should be inserted between them.

RULE VI.—­NO HYPHEN.

When a compound has but one accented syllable in pronunciation, as watchword, statesman, gentleman, and the parts are such as admit of a complete coalescence, no hyphen should be inserted between them.  Churchill, after much attention to this subject, writes thus:  “The practical instruction of the countinghouse imparts a more thorough knowledge of bookkeeping, than all the fictitious transactions of a mere schoolbook, however carefully constructed to suit particular purposes.”—­New Gram., p. vii.  But counting-house, having more stress on the last syllable than on the middle one, is usually written with the hyphen; and book-keeping and school-book, though they may not need it, are oftener so formed than otherwise.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—­Words are the least parts of significant language; that is, of language significant in each part; for, to syllables, taken merely as syllables, no meaning belongs.  But, to a word, signification of some sort or other, is essential; there can be no word without it; for a sign or symbol must needs represent or signify something.  And as I cannot suppose words to represent external things, I have said “A Word is one or more syllables spoken or written as the sign of some idea.”  But of what ideas are the words of our language significant?  Are we to say, “Of all ideas;” and to recognize as an English word every syllable, or combination of syllables, to which we know a meaning is attached?  No.  For this, in the first place, would confound one language with an other; and destroy a distinction which must ever be practically recognized, till all men shall again speak one language.  In the next place, it would compel us to embrace among our words an infinitude of terms that are significant only of local ideas, such as men any where or at any time may have had concerning any of the individuals they have known, whether persons, places, or things.  But, however