Keyser-Soeze Phenomenon

[ronbutters at AOL.COM]

I agree with Larry however, iIn the case of unfamiliar names, I would write 

"Keyser Soeze" syndrome

so that it would be clear that the phrase was not in itself a hyphenated term. In the case of my old Victorian literature professor, Richard Lloyd-Jones, I would think about writing

"Richard Lloyd-Jones" syndrome.

But hyphens are troublesome. I always get confused when I have to write

nineteenth- and twentieth-century literature

Should I just leave the hyphens out? Do I need them for clarity? Consistency? Cf. 

fat- and skinny-faced brides 


At 6:39 PM -0400 6/2/11, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> In my day, it was recommended that compounds used attributively be
> hyphenated for quicker comprehension.
> 
> Just where I read this escapes me, and I may be the only one who still does
> it. Or ever did it.
> 

Well, yes.  As in "an ADS-list posting" vs. "a posting on the ADS
list".  I make that distinction myself, and so do my students and
editees when I have anything to say about it. But does this
attributive hyphenization ever apply to the first and last name of a
moniker used attributively?  "An Abraham-Lincoln moment"?  Seems
unlikely.  I (usually) suspect confusion or uncertainty about the
actual name Keyser Soeze (always rendered with an actual umlaut when
possible), If the syndrome were to be named for, say, Kevin Spacey, I
don't think it would be called "the Kevin-Spacey syndrome".  So this,
then, would be a case not of "Who is Keyser Soeze?" but "What is
Keyser(-)Soeze?"

LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org