=Is it possible to construct the following sentence so as to give three distinct and separate meanings without changing the wording? The sentence is, “Twenty two dollar bills weigh as much as a silver dollar.”=
Yes. Twenty-two dollar bills, twenty two-dollar bills, and twenty-two-dollar bills (though there is no bill issued for $22).
=Please explain the correct manner of compounding the following adjectives: “Life-insurance company,” “fire insurance company,” “tornado insurance company.” I am under the impression that they should be used as written above, for this simple reason, namely: In the first instance it is possible to place an insurance upon your life, and therefore the two adjectives adhere and become compound. In the latter two cases it is different--you do not place insurance upon fire or tornado, but you insure _against_ them, and you do not insure against life; therefore, in the last two instances, the two adjectives do not adhere directly and should not be used as compound adjectives. I would also like to inquire further, if either of the above is incorporated in the full name of an organization, should they in any such case be compounded?=
If compounding occurs in any of the terms, it should in all, as they are exactly alike grammatically. Difference of meaning in the understood prepositions should not affect the forms. No compounding is really necessary, although the terms are compounds etymologically. If we tried to compound every term that could be reasonably joined in form no dividing line would ever be reached. Usage, especially in the names of corporations, is against compounding in these cases.
=A large book is now in press (about 150 pages having been electrotyped). Throughout these pages the apostrophe and additional _s_ were used in names ending with _s_, viz., Lewis’s, Parsons’s, Adams’s, etc. Proofs are now returned with final _s_ deled, which fact leads the Autocrat of the Composing-room (the Chairman) to arise and assert that “while the practice may be correct, it is behind the times,” “all good enough fifty years ago,” “won’t go in _good_ offices nowadays,” “never used in first-class work,” closing with the remark that he doesn’t see why it is not used in griffins’ [griffins’s] heads (!), Orphans’ [Orphans’s] Home (!), calmly ignoring the fact that in the first instance a common noun, plural, is used, and in the latter a proper noun, same number. The reader contends that the apostrophe and additional _s_ as marked are correct, and refers to the Harper publications, _Scribner’s_, the _Century_, and the work of any _good_ printing house. Who _is_ right, or which is right (all questions of “style” aside)?=