Hyphenated New Zealanders

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 224, 19 June 1944, Page 4

Hyphenated New Zealanders

Sir, —The letter from ’’Conservative,” published in Thursday’s issue of ’’The Dominion,” on the custom of hyphenating the word “New Zealander” is very much to the point, in spite of “Newzeal&er’s” jibe that it is never very easy to explain things to a Conservative. The fact that the Government Printer prefers a hyphen does not establish th rule of grammar. The use of the hyphen is in fact inexplicable. It is ugly, and it serves no useful purpose. It is worth noting that in none of the official centennial publications, . which are recognized as setting a very high standard, does the hyphenated spelling appear. It is not correct, therefore, that the hyphenated form is officially accepted.—l am, etc.—M.S.N.

Sir, —The argument advanced by “Newzeal&etC in support of the pedantic official habit of hyphenating “New Zealanders” is more laborious than real. There is no reasonable possibility of a native of this country being mistaken for a new “Zealander,” any more than we are likely to suspect that a native of New York is a new “Yorker,” or that a native of New Caledonia is a person who has not long been a Caledonian. A Buenos Aires man is not necessarily regarded by Spanish-speaking people as a good man, or would anyone in his normal senses suppose that Canary Islanders are coloured yellow. A thing 'that does puzzle many strangers to this country, .however, is our habit in pronunciation of intruding “zill” into Zealand. Some cultural good might accrue if our official publications removed the silly little hyphen between the two words of our country’s name, lengthened it a bit. and printed it as an emphasis under —New JScsiland. Wellington, June 16.

Sir. —Would “Newzeal&der,” or his Conservative friend, explain how a citizen of New South Wales is to get on? Is he a New-South-Welshman or a. New South Welshman? And is a native of New Plymouth, a New-Plymouthite or not? —I am, etc. —SOUTH LANDER. Wellington. June 16.