Q. Hi! Would “results sharing” be hyphenated in this example? “Each webcast includes in-session polling and results sharing.” Thanks!
A. According to our hyphenation guide (at CMOS 7.89, sec. 2), a compound noun that consists of a noun plus a gerund should be left open unless listed as either hyphenated or closed in Merriam-Webster. The term “results sharing” isn’t in M-W in any form, so leave it open.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello! I understand that hyphens work like “treatment-naive patients” but “patients are treatment naive.” However, what would you recommend if the modifier is used alone—e.g., in a graph key? Hyphen or open? Should the key be “Treatment-naive” and “Previously treated,” or “Treatment naive” and “Previously treated”? Thank you!
A. Good question! Either approach would work, but we would lean slightly toward retaining the hyphen. The words “Treatment naive” as a standalone label lack the immediate context a sentence provides, making them prone to a momentary misreading without a hyphen (as they might be before a noun).
But we’d leave “Previously treated” alone as you’ve done; that term, thanks to that ly ending, wouldn’t be hyphenated in any context.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi. I’m working on a label for an image in a printed brochure. The entire label is “bison shoulder blade hoe.” How would you punctuate that—with an en dash (“bison–shoulder blade hoe”)? Or hyphens (“bison-shoulder-blade hoe” or “bison shoulder-blade hoe”)? I was thinking that technically an en dash would be correct according to CMOS 6.80, but that seems too formal and, as CMOS states, unlikely to be noticed by most. There is no room to reword it. Thank you!
Q. Regarding open compounds, would an en dash be correct in “Mr. Potato Head–like head” and “rubbing alcohol–soaked cotton”? Thank you!
A. See CMOS 7.85: “With the exception of proper nouns (such as United States) and compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective (see 7.86), it is never incorrect to hyphenate adjectival compounds before a noun.” The goal of adding such hyphens is to clarify the meaning of the text.
To start with the bison, that example refers to a hoe fashioned from a bison’s shoulder blade. The three relevant terms are bison, shoulder blade, and hoe, so the clearest version is the last: “bison shoulder-blade hoe.”
We agree that an en dash wouldn’t work all that well; in “bison–shoulder blade hoe,” readers would need to recognize “shoulder blade” as a distinct compound before “hoe.” You’d be better off leaving the words open (“bison shoulder blade hoe”), trusting readers to sort out the modifiers without the help of hyphens or dashes. Or you could use two hyphens (“bison-shoulder-blade hoe”), but that doesn’t single out “shoulder blade” either, so the uncluttered open version is better.
As for the second question, it would be hard to improve on “Mr. Potato Head–like head,” where the en dash provides a perfect illustration of the principles covered in CMOS 6.80. And though the en dash is technically correct also in “rubbing alcohol–soaked cotton,” we’d advise rephrasing: “cotton soaked in rubbing alcohol.” Readers then won’t have to mentally sort out the string of modifiers to identify “rubbing alcohol,” a compound that, like “shoulder blade” in the bison example, lacks Mr. Potato Head’s prominent initial caps. Nor would “rubbing-alcohol soaked cotton” work; participles like “soaked” always require a hyphen in that position (see the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.89, sec. 2, under “noun + participle”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is correct: “minimum food-safety standards” or “minimum food safety standards”? Thank you.
A. According to the hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89, a phrase like “food safety”—in which one noun (“food”) modifies another (“safety”)—would be hyphenated as a modifier before another noun. In other words, you’d write “food-safety standards” (with a hyphen). Adding “minimum” doesn’t change that: “minimum food-safety standards.”
That’s Chicago style, strictly interpreted, and you could stop there.
But a look at Google Ngram Viewer suggests that the phrase “food safety standards” has rarely appeared with a hyphen in published prose, maybe because standards for food safety and safety standards for food are pretty much the same thing, so a hyphen isn’t needed for clarity. A hyphen in the larger phrase—“minimum food-safety standards”—is a little more helpful (preventing a momentary misreading in which safety standards apply to “minimum food,” whatever that might be), but not much.
You’ve landed on one of those gray areas that tend to (or tends to?) drive writers and editors up the wall. A hyphen may help some readers—and it’s rarely considered wrong to add one in this scenario (see CMOS 7.85)—but it doesn’t seem to be customary in this particular phrase. If you’re looking to justify leaving it out, cite common usage and CMOS 7.84: “Where no ambiguity could result . . . hyphenation is unnecessary.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In your hyphenation guide, adjectival phrases are addressed: “Hyphenated before a noun; usually open after a noun.” Would the adjectival phrase “one-on-one” apply? The dictionary lists it only with hyphens, but I’m dealing with a sentence where it seems the hyphens would be unnecessary: “Coaches are available to meet one-on-one.”
A. In your example, “one-on-one” functions as an adverb rather than as an adjective (it modifies the verb to meet). And in general, a phrase that’s listed in Merriam-Webster with hyphens retains its hyphens if used as an adverb. Compare “day by day.” That expression, which is listed in Merriam-Webster without hyphens, would be hyphenated only as an adjective before a noun. For example, you would “take things day by day” (adv.) but “make a day-by-day assessment” (adj.).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the correct way to hyphenate school grade levels, “fifth-grade” or “fifth grade”? And “fifth-grader” or “fifth grader”? Thank you.
A. Nouns like fifth grade and fifth grader are both left open:
Not all of us made it past the eighth grade.
Some second graders are more advanced than others.
Adjective forms, however, are hyphenated:
Our fifth-grade lessons included more writing than reading.
See also CMOS 7.89, section 1, under “number, ordinal, + noun.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I know an en dash separates sports scores, representing the word “to” (e.g., “the Lions won 34–6”), but what about win/loss records? In this case one would say, for example, “They ended the season with a record of 10 and 4.” So should this be expressed with an en dash or a hyphen? 10-4 or 10–4?
A. Though it’s not strictly a range, a 10–4 record expresses a comparison, as in “ten wins compared to four losses.” This makes records analogous to scores; a score of 34–6 could be restated as “thirty-four points compared to six.” So use an en dash for both.
Write “win–loss record” with an en dash too. Though the forward slash in your question makes a lot of sense—it suggests alternatives, as in “wins, on the one hand, and losses, on the other”—an en dash in “win–loss” will be consistent with its parallel use in expressions like “10–4.”
Finally, it should be noted that sports scores and records have appeared far more often with hyphens than with en dashes in published sources. That’s what you’ll find in the AP Stylebook, the primary guide for many sports reporters. The Associated Press, like many of the news sources it serves, doesn’t use en dashes. If you’re a fan of the en dash, score one for Chicago over AP.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work as an editor, and we use CMOS as our primary source. My boss recently told me to hyphenate “machine-scored” in “the items were machine-scored,” because of a rule she cited about compounds formed with a verb. I can’t find a rule like this in CMOS. Is the hyphen Chicago style?
A. Chicago doesn’t require a hyphen in “machine scored” unless it serves as a modifier before a noun (e.g., “a machine-scored test”); after a noun, as in your example, the hyphen would be omitted. See the hyphenation guide, section 2, “noun + participle” (at CMOS 7.89). Compare “air-conditioned,” which is hyphenated in all positions, and “handcrafted,” which is always closed. Those terms derive from the verbs “air-condition” and “handcraft,” respectively, which are listed as such in Merriam-Webster (see also “phrases, verbal” in section 2 of the guide in CMOS).
The verb “machine score,” on the other hand, isn’t in Merriam-Webster. But that doesn’t mean your organization can’t choose to hyphenate it as a matter of house style. If you do—a decision that might make sense, for example, as the style for a company that routinely scores standardized tests and therefore uses the term more often than the average writer or publisher—then hyphenate it as a verb and as an adjective, in all positions in a sentence. For the noun, you could use “air conditioner” and “air-conditioning” as your models, leaving only “machine scorer” open.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In my office we have noticed a trend in Merriam-Webster to show previously closed compound words as hyphenated, such as “antiracist” and “antilabor.” CMOS clearly has a spare hyphenation style and lists prefixes as usually closed. Which should we follow when the two sources disagree? I would lean toward continuing to close compounds like “antiracist” and “antilabor” and use CMOS as our source, but we have been going in circles for a year now on this debate. Please help.
A. What you are noticing is the result of Merriam-Webster’s decision to create individual entries for a whole bunch of compounds that in earlier versions of its dictionaries—both the one at Merriam-Webster.com and the printed Collegiate—were simply listed under the applicable prefixes. These entries were added after the publication of CMOS 17.
In the earlier lists, most of these terms were closed, clearly as a matter of editorial principle rather than (as for the main dictionary entries) common usage. For example, if you consult a first printing of the Collegiate (11th ed., 2003), you’ll find, under the prefix anti-, “antifur” and “antiwar”—along with “antiracist” and “antilabor” and dozens of other closed compounds. Only a term like “anti-immigration” (double i) or “anti-Soviet” (capital S) merits a hyphen. Under non- and pre-, hyphenation is strictly limited to terms with capital letters (e.g., “nonnews” but “non-Marxist” and “preelectric” but “pre-Christmas”).
And though the majority of compounds formed with prefixes remain closed in Merriam-Webster, all but one of the unhyphenated examples mentioned above are now hyphenated, either as a main entry or as a variant (“antifur” is the sole exception).
Going forward, there are some definite advantages to following the editorial approach described in section 4 of the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.89. It’s easier than looking up each term in Merriam-Webster, and the results will be more consistent. Plus, you can invoke rule no. 3 (in the intro to section 4) and add a hyphen to a compound like “antifur,” which is awkward without one, despite what the dictionary might have. Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster can continue to act as arbiter in any remaining cases of doubt.
For some additional perspective, see our Shop Talk post on this subject.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS 6.81 says en dashes can be used to set off campuses of universities, as in “University of Wisconsin–Madison.” When abbreviating the university such that it’s one word, would it make sense to change the en dash to a hyphen? For example, would you write “UW-Madison” with a hyphen because “UW” is now one word?
A. Though either decision could be defended, we prefer to leave en dashes intact in the abbreviated forms of names that include one when spelled out. In other words, the dash survives the shortening of the words without itself undergoing a reduction in length: “UW–Madison.” This decision will lend an appearance of consistency to documents that feature both the abbreviated and spelled-out forms.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]