I also have no real explanation for this and don't understand why some
lactation folks get so worked up by it, as if it is written in stone
somewhere that it should be breastfeeding or breastmilk instead of some
other alternative. I don't care what you call it, as long as the information
is correct and you say it is normal.

Sharon Knorr

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Virginia Thorley
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> I'll try to keep this reply as short as possible.  English as a living
> language is always in a state of flux, with new words entering the
> language,
> some old ones falling into decline, and spellings changing.  (Since when do
> you see new words like "telephone" in dead languages like Latin?)  To
> hyphenate or not to hyphenate is one of the areas of change, and at any
> given time different dictionaries will reflect the state of the language by
> recording the spelling of a word differently.
>
> In the late-19th century, "to-morrow" (= this morrow) was still hyphenated,
> but over the next few decades the word was spelt as one word without the
> hyphen, as it is today.  In the late-1940s, in some parts of the
> English-speaking world, children were taught to write "today" as "to-day".
> It changed to one word soon after.
>
> So it is with "breast feeding", "breast-feeding" and "breastfeeding".
> Two-part words that express a single concept, "e.g. "heartbeat", start out
> as two words, but a common process is to link them with a hyphen and
> eventually spell them as two words.  In the first half of the 1980s, when I
> was writing my second book, my publisher asked me to use the (Australian)
> Macquarie Dictionary as the spelling standard.  I had been using the Pocket
> Oxford, which spelt the word in question as "breast-feeding", but the
> Macquarie spelt it as "breastfeeding".  So "breastfeeding" it was in both
> editions of that book.
>
> In my first book, first published in Sydney in 1974, I spelt the word with
> a
> hyphen throughout the text - and was surprised to find, on publication,
> that
> the publisher had spelt it as two separate words on the cover.  Later
> editions (there were several) with a different publisher (ABA, then NMAA)
> spelt it with a hyphen - until at some time in the 1980s the NMAA's
> in-house
> spelling policy changed, and thereafter it was one word, "breastfeeding".
> This was in line with what some other writers in other countries were
> beginning to do, anyway.
>
> Even today, different professional or academic journals have their own
> "house" styles for use or hyphens - or not.  "Breastfeeding" is still spelt
> in any of the above three ways in different publications, whether
> periodicals or books.  It is more likely to be spelt as one word in
> journals
> that are focused on breastfeeding and human lactation, probably because is
> viewed as a concept.
>
> A further complication is that typing a hyphen on the computer slows the
> flow of words and so, to simplify the matter, some publications are leaving
> out hyphens by spelling the words as two words, while others are spelling
> them as one word.  I can't quickly think of examples, but a perusal of
> newspapers will provide words where this happens.
>
> I have to be out the door, and I'd like to continue this discussion.
>  Please
> copy any replies to me privately.
>
> Virginia
>
> Dr Virginia Thorley, OAM, PhD, IBCLC, FILCA
> Brisbane, Qld, Australia
> E: [log in to unmask]
>
> Liz Brooks posted this message to Lactnet and privately to me (as I am
> nomail):
>
> Subject:  Why do we say breastmilk?
>
> Ok, this falls a little bit into the "word wonk" category, but here goes.
> I'm pondering this, and am hitting a dead-end in all the resources on my
> shelves.
>
> Why do we use the term breastmilk?  And breastfeed?  Instead of breast-milk
> or breast-feed?  Or breast-with-a-space-milk?
>
> The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is rife with
> the hyphenated spelling.  It was passed in 1981, and the lactivists working
> for its passage were no slouches, so I have to believe that was the
> prevalent nomenclature in the day.  Miriam Labbok's paper in 1990 sought
> uniform definitions of breastfeeding in research.  No hyphen, and no
> explanation why, just a well-reasoned plea to make defintions uniform to
> advance comparative review of research.
>
> So how did we all end up on the bandwagon of no hyphenation?
>
> I know there are some who take exception to the terms breastmilk and
> breastfeed -- in preference for human milk or human milk feeding -- since
> we
> don't describe dogs, cows, gorillas or giraffes as teat-feeding or
> nipple-feeding their young, and shouldn't then use the human body part to
> describe the feeding of human babies.   But note even there:  why aren't
> the
> proponents using "humanmilk" all one word?
>
>
>
> Liz Brooks, JD, IBCLC, FILCA
> Wyndmoor, PA, USA
>
>             ***********************************************
>
> Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
> To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
> Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
> COMMANDS:
> 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set
> lactnet nomail
> 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
> 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
> 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
>

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome