Q. I’m interested in how you would treat the following issue of double punctuation: U.S.-oriented. I decided to omit the hyphen, which I would have otherwise used, because I didn’t like the way it looked following an abbreviation period.
A. It may look a little odd, but the hyphen is conventional there, because omitting it could cause readers to mistake “oriented” for a verb. If your publication’s style permits, you can follow CMOS and omit the periods: US-oriented.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should a range of specific dates be written using an unspaced en dash, even in headings? Which is correct: 14 March 1879–8 April 1955 or 14 March 1879—8 April 1955?
A. The first is Chicago style (please see CMOS 6.78), but changing the dash to “to” will make the phrase more readable.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A question arose in my proofreading class about the phrase “rock and roll.” Merriam-Webster suggests that when it is used as a noun, no hyphens are required, and when used as an adjective, hyphens are preferred. Our question was whether we should choose one or the other and stick with it through the entire document or alternate between hyphenating and not hyphenating depending upon usage.
A. Good question! The dictionary can’t make this clear, but a good style guide can: you should consistently hyphenate the adjective phrase and consistently leave the noun open. Your proofreading class would benefit from a look at the hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Stylebooks insist on the use of a second comma in place-names that include city and state (he came from Smith’s
Falls, Virginia, to drive the car), but it seems to me that the internal comma serves to separate the town name from the state
name, and not to set off a nonrestrictive phrase, so it need not be followed by the second comma. Does this make sense?
A. Yes, it makes sense, but as we know, that is irrelevant.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a report about the EPA’s “Climate Ready Estuaries”
program. Unfortunately, the program’s formal name has no hyphen, but there are several instances of
“climate ready” as a phrasal adjective throughout the paper. I obviously can’t
insert a hyphen into the program name, and I’m naturally averse to leaving “climate
ready” unhyphenated. But this creates at least the appearance of inconsistency. What’s
a diligent hyphenator to do?
A. The hyphenator needs to chill. Proper names and titles are allowed to diverge from style, and there’s
no shame in that. If the text is consistent within itself, you’ve done your job. If the apparent inconsistency
really bothers you, the obvious remedy is to break style and leave the phrase unhyphenated everywhere.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question about physical quantities in a sentence: “Berry (1979) did more tests on the 2-gram tablets.” Is the hyphen correct?
A. Chicago style is the same for all physical quantities. Please see our hyphenation table (section 1, under “number + noun”). In nontechnical text, we spell out the number (a two-gram tablet); in technical contexts, we abbreviate the measure and omit the hyphen (a 2 g tablet).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If you have to call someone “Jeff-bear,” is the hyphen appropriate, or would
“Jeffbear” suffice? The new Manual doesn’t say.
A. I’m sorry, but when we got to the term “Jeff-bear,” the
Hyphenation Committee couldn’t agree and things started to get nasty, so we left it out. I’m
afraid you’re on your own.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. There is one type of compound adjective that has been causing me grief, and I was hoping you might be able to clarify it
for me: “high–molecular weight hydrocarbon” or “high-molecular-weight
hydrocarbon” or “high molecular weight hydrocarbon”? The
sentence, for context: Following flocculation using a high-molecular-weight, medium-charge density polyacrylamide flocculent
at optimal dosage, the filterability of flocculated sediments from tailings containing an intermediate fines content of solids
from 10 to 20 wt. % was improved drastically. Thank you kindly!
A. In my experience, flocculating almost always leads to trouble. Although your version with the en dash is technically correct,
it doesn’t make clear how many of the words following are included in the compound. I would write instead
“high-molecular-weight hydrocarbon” to clarify what goes with what, just as you
did by writing “medium-charge density polyacrylamide flocculent” (lest we misread
“medium charge-density”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi, CMOS: I work in India, and we’ve been going back and forth over whether or not to hyphenate “ebook” for the US version of some marketing material. The British version does not hyphenate it, but Merriam-Webster does. Wired magazine, interestingly, has it both ways, and the CNET website hyphenates. Do you have a recommendation as to how to make an editorial decision when there is no fixed house style and when there’s really no clear consensus on how to proceed?
A. Flip a coin? If authorities disagree, that’s where your editorial judgment and aesthetic preferences come into play. Just decide what you like best and note it in your style guide.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. MS Word changes two hyphens to the solid-line em dash. What do editors and copyeditors prefer? Thanks.
A. If your copy will be typeset, then it doesn’t matter: both versions signal the typesetter to set an
em dash. If your Word doc is the finished product, however, go with the real thing.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]