[HN Gopher] Word spacing
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Word spacing
        
       Author : doener
       Score  : 35 points
       Date   : 2025-12-05 08:08 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
        
       | doener wrote:
       | Via https://noc.social/@todayilearned/115665925876659478
        
         | m4rtink wrote:
         | Japanese does not have spaces between words and it works just
         | fine. ^_^
        
           | dhosek wrote:
           | Ditto with Thai, Chinese, Lao, etc. I think Korean is the
           | only east-asian script which uses word spacing. Given the
           | late introduction of word spacing into writing, it's almost
           | more a surprise that scripts have it than don't.
        
       | kccqzy wrote:
       | I actually like the interpunct way better (which I first saw when
       | I visited Italy and saw historical carvings): instead[?]of[?]putt
       | ing[?]spaces[?]you[?]put[?]a[?]small[?]dot[?]between[?]words[?]in
       | stead.
        
         | Terr_ wrote:
         | Nowadays I only see/use the middle dot to cla[?]ri[?]fy
         | syl[?]la[?]bles in lyr[?]ics.
        
         | mrsvanwinkle wrote:
         | I love that better! I was also just in Italy recently and you
         | made me double take this tablet hanging on a canopy in one of
         | the peregrination churches and they ARE interpuncts but for
         | names only
        
         | dhosek wrote:
         | This is still the standard in setting Ethiopic text
        
         | piskov wrote:
         | Why would you use visible noise for something that should be
         | void
        
           | vntok wrote:
           | Why should it be void?
        
             | piskov wrote:
             | Look into this:
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_(negative_space)
        
       | pinkmuffinere wrote:
       | This is fascinating! At the same time, this wikipedia article is
       | of surprisingly low quality, with sentences like
       | 
       | > It is hard to determine how much spacing should be put in
       | between words, but a good typographer is able to determine proper
       | spacing.[3]
       | 
       | > Since the fifteenth century, the best work shows that text is
       | to be read smoothly and efficiently.[4]
       | 
       | > Two other gentlemen have expressed different opinions on what
       | the space between words should be.
        
         | contingencies wrote:
         | Exactly the same sentences grated here. It is the subjective
         | passed off as the objective, passed on with a tone of false
         | authority. A surprisingly large majority of public
         | communications fall in to this category. Mastering this
         | puffery, usually for the express purpose of swaying the wills
         | of lesser minds or pressing buttons in funding and grant
         | processes, grants you the reigns of bureaucracy and a career in
         | corporate, public or international relations. A horrible way to
         | waste a life.
        
         | thesuitonym wrote:
         | I thought it was weirdly written, too. Why is the CSS property
         | that controls it worth mentioning in the opening paragraph, and
         | wtf is "standardized digital typography"?
        
       | msuniverse2026 wrote:
       | Weird that only Latin, Greek, and Irish is mentioned in the
       | article.
        
         | eesmith wrote:
         | Also English. ("In English, the ability to ...")
        
       | wanderingstan wrote:
       | Related self promotion: this factoid about spaces, along with
       | other fun slices in the evolution of writing, features in my
       | decade-ago Ignite talk "For the love of letters"
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/g1Rko-LG6aY?si=SbLDRnORPnKiXCxu
        
         | Terr_ wrote:
         | Since we're already being picky about languages, that's not a
         | factoid: Factoids are things which _resemble_ facts, but aren
         | 't actually facts.
         | 
         | The whole -oid suffix, really. Asteroids aren't really stars,
         | meteoroids aren't really meteors, androids aren't really men,
         | spheroids aren't really spheres, factoids aren't really facts,
         | etc.
        
           | aspenmayer wrote:
           | > Factoids are things which resemble facts, but aren't
           | actually facts.
           | 
           | I think you might be right but not definitively so: the
           | Oxford dictionary has your definition, as does the New Oxford
           | American dictionary which also lists the following as North
           | American usage:
           | 
           | > a brief or trivial item of news or information
        
             | Terr_ wrote:
             | Yeah, but that's the same lax descriptivist school that
             | also tell you "literally" and "I could care less" should
             | somehow be accepted as the exact opposites, they're just
             | wrong. :p
             | 
             | Is it equally accepted for "peoples" to be possessive and
             | "people's" to be plural? At what point does something that
             | began as an unambiguous error become rescued by the
             | popularity of the mistake?
        
               | aspenmayer wrote:
               | As we don't have an official or authoritative body that
               | determines "proper" English usage as other languages do,
               | appealing to a dictionary strikes me as a mite better
               | than prescriptivism or pedantry, though I don't think was
               | your intention either.
               | 
               | > Is it equally accepted for "peoples" to be possessive
               | and "people's" to be plural?
               | 
               | That's entirely unrelated and uncontroversial; one is the
               | plural of a "people," as in multiple distinct groups of
               | folks with shared culture, nationality, or other traits,
               | whereas the other is the possessive form of a word that
               | is already plural, so I'm not sure if that's a red
               | herring or if you've actually seen such incorrect usage
               | being advocated for.
        
           | mkehrt wrote:
           | http://communitiesofnativespeakerscantbewrongaboutwhatwordsm.
           | ..
           | 
           | I'll add "factoid."
        
             | Terr_ wrote:
             | Hypocrisy: You're just claiming a _different_ community of
             | native speakers are wrong.
             | 
             | For some of the samples on that site, it'd question whether
             | they even have majority-support as "correct" when brought
             | to people's conscious attention, as opposed to simply being
             | a popular mistake they don't object-to. (Do any polls
             | exist? The nature of the content evades easy search-terms.)
        
       | retentionissue wrote:
       | And then 7 centuries later, whiskey came about and look how
       | terrible things turned out.............
        
         | SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
         | I'm told that things took a turn for the worse in 1649.
        
       | delichon wrote:
       | > Word spacing [creates] what Paul Sanger, in his book The Spaces
       | between the Words, refers to as aerated text.
       | 
       | I like that term. I particularly enjoy a large amount of
       | ventilation of code, with plenty of breezy white spaces after
       | purposely short lines and between brief declarations.
        
       | sempron64 wrote:
       | This is for Latin. The Dead Sea Scrolls have clear spacing
       | between the words. https://www.imj.org.il/en/wings/shrine-
       | book/dead-sea-scrolls
       | 
       | The Talmud discusses the spacing between the words of the Bible:
       | https://www.bible-researcher.com/hebrewtext1.html
        
       | abdullahkhalids wrote:
       | OT: Urdu, like Arabic/Persian, is written with an alphabet where
       | letters can change shape based on whether they are at the start,
       | middle or end of a "word" [1]. I say "word" because some letters
       | don't have a middle form, so each actual word is broken into a
       | sequence of composite-letter-shapes, where each composite shape
       | start with such a no-middle-form letter.
       | 
       | A problem arises when one wants to write a compound word, which
       | the last letter for the first word and the first letter of the
       | second word must not be joined. To achieve this, the unicode
       | standard has U+200C ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER character, which should
       | be used in such compound words [2]. The standard SPACE character
       | should not be used because it will create a physical space, while
       | U+200C will create a break with no space.
       | 
       | However, typically Urdu keyboards don't have this character in
       | them, so everyone ends up either using SPACE or just joining the
       | words.
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu_alphabet
       | 
       | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_non-joiner
        
       | piskov wrote:
       | Instead of that sorry excuse of an article, here is the proper
       | long-read about spaces.
       | 
       | Albeit in Russian, all modern browsers support live translation
       | -- should be fine.
       | 
       | https://type.today/ru/journal/spaces
       | 
       | Update: in English https://type.today/en/journal/spaces
       | 
       | --
       | 
       | BTW typography is very important to Russian designers and
       | developers.
       | 
       | Many install special typography layout (with "right alt" layer
       | for the symbols) to always enter correct m-dashes, quotes, and
       | what have you.
       | 
       | https://ilyabirman.ru/typography-layout/
       | 
       | There is even an ongoing meme with a woman crying "I don't
       | deserve such treatment, that's how I've always written" when her
       | flawless typography was considered ChatGPT in the making:
       | 
       | https://youtube.com/shorts/IrhFP67-_vA?si=n9UICaRQ9ZiUyVuT
        
         | derleyici wrote:
         | FYI, you don't even need browser translation. The piece already
         | has an English version available. There's a language toggle in
         | the navigation bar, and the English version is here:
         | https://type.today/en/journal/spaces
         | 
         | Also, liked the article!
        
         | thesuitonym wrote:
         | Wikipedia articles, and encyclopedia articles in general, are
         | not meant to be "proper long-read" articles. They're meant to
         | be short, descriptive passages that give you enough of an
         | overview to know _what_ the subject is, and directions on where
         | to find more information should you want it. This is not a
         | sorry excuse, it 's just the nature of what an encyclopedia is.
        
           | piskov wrote:
           | Nah, that was just sloppy.
           | 
           | Dashes article is ok though:
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash
        
       | ralferoo wrote:
       | There's lots of questionable stuff on this page. I particularly
       | objected to this which clearly isn't true in most English speech:
       | 
       | "Word spacing is crucial for the written form because it
       | illustrates the sound of speech where audible gaps or pauses take
       | place."
       | 
       | If I were reading it aloud, even for a presentation, the spaces
       | between morphemes would be more like this:
       | 
       | "Wordspacing iscru'cial forthewri'ttenform be'cause
       | itill'ustrates thesoun'dofspeech where audiblegaps or pauses
       | takeplace."
       | 
       | where a ' is a shorted pause than a space. The length of the '
       | isn't really long enough to be called out as a pause, but it's
       | definitely longer than between words which frequently run
       | directly into the next.
       | 
       | Spacing is important, but it's as an aid to parsing a written
       | sentence at speed, and almost nothing to do with showing the
       | pauses between morphemes.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-08 23:01 UTC)