Q. In a previous Q&A, a curious reader asked you to weigh in on the subject of hyphenated Americans. You responded that “CMOS prefers not to hyphenate Americans of any sort, even when they appear in an adjective phrase.” Were it actually an adjectival phrase, like “apathetic Americans,” I would be inclined to agree; however, I maintain that the examples “African-American,” “Asian-American,” and even “Native-American” (or as I prefer, American-Indian) are all compound proper nouns and must be hyphenated. They are not merely Americans who happen to be African, but rather African-Americans—a distinct ethnic and cultural group. Irrefutable logic?
A. I don’t see any logic in requiring the hyphenation of compound proper nouns when they are used as adjectives. In fact, because they are capitalized, there is no need for additional bells and whistles to signal that they belong together: Rocky Mountain trails, New Hampshire maple syrup, SpongeBob SquarePants lunchbox.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are poets allowed poetic license to do practically anything with punctuation? I ask this in view of a poem by Emily Dickinson
that seems to use the em dash in bewildering and inscrutable ways.
A. Yes, poets are pretty much allowed to do as they please. In my experience, they are sometimes even offended by editing, believing
that their misspellings and inconsistencies are inspired, if not intentional. Of course, if poetry is idiosyncratic to the
point of being annoying, nobody will want to buy it, so there’s some motivation for restraint in the
first place.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A bill has been proposed dealing with price gouging. Would it be correct to write Anti-Price Gouging Act or Anti-Price-Gouging Act? I have seen it both ways.
A. Although hyphens are often optional, I would hate to see a Gouging Act, even if it were an anti-price one, so I would use both hyphens. A fancier fix would be to use an en dash after “anti”: Anti–Price Gouging Act (per CMOS 6.80), although to my eye that still suggests a somewhat gory scene.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi. I work for a county auditor’s office which publishes a voters’ guide for
each general election and primary. Each candidate writes his or her own statement to the voters, as do supporters and opponents
of ballot measures. In the interest of space and fairness, we limit the number of words each writer can use. Our recurring
question: should we count a hyphenated word group (such as “32-year-old”) as one
word or three? I’m in favor of counting such constructions as one word. What’s
your vote? Thanks!
A. Those three words are hyphenated only because they form an adjective phrase. It would hardly be fair to dock candidate A
(“a 32-year-old teacher”) one word for “32-year-old”
and candidate B (“who first ran for office when she was 32 years old”) three words
for “32 years old.” On the other hand, an argument for your system is that a computer
might count “32-year-old” as one word, and you might feel you needed the convenience
and objectivity of computer counting. But if your motives are fairness and logic, I would count each word as a word, whether
it’s hyphenated or not. (An exception might be words with prefixes, which Chicago style does not hyphenate
but many writers do: pre-date, anti-war, etc.) Good luck—either way, you’ll probably
have objections from the candidates.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My reputable dictionaries give “transpacific” and “transatlantic”
but not “transindian.” On its own, “his transindian voyage”
would probably be ambiguous, but if I were to write “his transpacific, transatlantic, and transindian
voyages were remarkable feats,” there would appear to be little risk of ambiguity. Would you consider
that acceptable? If not, how should I express such a thing?
A. Yes, Chicago editors might opt for what we call “regional consistency” here by
styling all three compounds in the same way rather than hyphenate “trans-Indian.”
Or we might hyphenate all three, if we thought there would be any confusion about the unfamiliar “transindian.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. According to CMOS table 6.1 (14th ed.), a noun plus a participle would have a hyphen, and the prefix “non” is a closed compound. So, my question is how would you hyphenate the word “nonlife-threatening” or would you avoid such a word altogether? Thanks.
A. I would use two hyphens (non-life-threatening), both in the spirit of CMOS 6.80 and because “nonlife-threatening” connotes the “threat of nonlife” (i.e., death), which is the opposite of the intended meaning. In general we aim to use hyphens to promote clarity, and we don’t stand on the rules if confusion results.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The menu in our cafeteria shows that enchiladas are available “Tues.–Fri.”
However, when I ordered one on a Wednesday, I was informed that enchiladas are available on Tuesday AND Friday, not Tuesday
THROUGH Friday. When I informed the cafeteria manager that this was incorrect, she seemed shocked and refused to change the
sign. Please help determine who is correct!
A. Although the sign was incorrect, I’m not sure you should annoy the person who provides the enchiladas.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m copyediting a novel in which the author has gone hyphen-mad. She is fond of such terms as “horse-yard,” “juniper-wood,” “yard-gate,” “cedar-grove,” and so on. I want to defer to an author’s stylistic preferences, but I feel too much is too much. In most cases, the meaning seems perfectly clear without a hyphen. What can I say to this author?
A. Are you working for a publisher? If so, they will have guidelines that you can wave at the author. (Here, we follow Merriam-Webster.) If not, you should let her know what source you follow for hyphenated compounds and ask if she has any objections. If you need to justify your method to the author, try to find cases where she’s inconsistent and explain that in order to arbitrate, you’ll be using a dictionary. Most authors are in favor of consistency, and will understand that following a reference book is the best guarantee of this. Point out that an abundance of hyphens can give a jittery feel to a narration. (A fiction writer will fear that.) Finally, make sure she understands that the same phrase can appear with and without a hyphen depending on its use as a noun or adjective, and that you’ll be marking them accordingly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS, I am experiencing a meltdown at work. My colleagues believe that “test taker” is one word, while I believe that it should be hyphenated as “test-taker.” I am also unclear, after reading the CMOS, about another form of this phrase, “test taking.” If I write, “It is an important strategy for test taking,” should “test-taking” be hyphenated? Thank you for your help. This has become a highly debated issue within our office and I would love to resolve it once and for all.
A. Following Chicago style, we would hyphenate “test taking” only when it’s an adjective. Otherwise, we would keep it open. We follow Merriam-Webster for closed compound nouns and adjectives, and “testtaker” doesn’t appear there. Obviously, the hyphenation of compounds is far too complex and fluid to be strictly covered by a set of rules. Check Merriam-Webster, and if the compound isn’t there, then consider whether a hyphen is needed in order to avoid confusion. If it’s not, then omit the hyphen. It might help to read the hyphenation guide for compounds, combining forms, and prefixes in CMOS 7.89.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please help! My British colleagues keep giving me books to proofread (for US publication, so they should be in American style)
in which phrases like “parent-teacher relationship” and “human-animal
bond” contain an en dash rather than a hyphen. Chicago says that if either “parent”
or “teacher” were an open compound (such as, I suppose, “math
teacher”), an en dash would be appropriate—so am I to conclude that since this
is not the case I should use a hyphen? As far as I can tell, none of the examples in the section on hyphenation pertain to
this construction. Are the en dashes correct, or are they just British?
A. Your British colleagues might be following Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors, and Proofreaders , 4th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), which advises using what it calls “en rules”
“to convey a distinction in sense” (section 6.12.1; note that it is also the common
British practice to use an en dash with a word space on either side where American publishers would use an em dash closed
up to the surrounding words). This allows one to write, for example, “US–British
relations” to mean relations between the United States and Britain. The en dash is supposed to convey
something more than simply relations that are characterized or modified, independently, by the United States and Britain.
And while editors here like such a subtle distinction, we do not believe that it is useful enough to mandate, and therefore
we prefer the hyphen (e.g., US-British relations). En dashes instead of hyphens should be used between words in running text
only as a last resort—usually to bridge an open compound, as you suggest—and even
then it’s probably fair to assume that most readers will see a hyphen.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]