Q. I know that you use “to” and not an en dash with “from”: “from 2012 to 2016 (not from 2012–16).” But what about with “for”? Should it be “for 25 to 30 minutes” or “for 25–30 minutes”?
A. An en dash is allowed in number ranges preceded by “for”: “for 25–30 minutes.” The same goes for “in”: “in 25–30 minutes.” Try this test: if the expression would still make sense with only half the range, then an en dash would be correct (though it is always permissible to use “to” instead). “We stood there for 25 minutes” and “we completed the survey in 25 minutes” are both unambiguous. On the other hand, “we lived there from 2012,” though it is sometimes encountered in speech, is incomplete (from 2012 to when?). The preposition “between”—which pairs with “and” rather than “to”—fails the test even more conclusively (try it).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I understood that compounds formed with prefixes are normally closed. However, I see a hyphen used on television and in print with all sorts of prefixes—for example, “co-founder” or “non-violent.” Are compounds formed with prefixes still normally closed? Or has spellcheck run amok?
A. Don’t worry, compounds formed with prefixes are still usually closed (see our hyphenation guide, section 4, under CMOS 7.89). But the truth about hyphens is that they tend to make compounds more legible rather than less. The deconstructionists understood this when they used a hyphen to show that the apparently straightforward act of re-membering involves piecing together the fragments of the past. But use hyphens sparingly, and only when they are truly needed. Chicago advises retaining a hyphen to prevent a doubled a or i (“intra-arterial,” “anti-intellectual”) and for certain words that might look odd without one (“pro-life,” “pro-choice”). A hyphen is also required next to a proper noun (“sub-Saharan”) or a numeral (“pre-1950”). In rare cases, a hyphen can distinguish between two meanings of a word (“recreate” vs. “re-create”). And though “cofounder” is frequently hyphenated (“co-founder” is the second-listed of equal variants in Merriam-Webster), “nonviolent” is more likely to appear closed—and neither requires a hyphen in Chicago style.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It’s 2020. Can we please stop using a hyphen in “dropdown”?
A. According to the Apple Style Guide (dated December 2019), the term shouldn’t be used at all:
drop-down menu. Don’t use; use menu.
The Microsoft Writing Style Guide allows it, but only for an audience that includes developers:
It’s OK to use drop-down as an adjective in content for developers if you need to describe the type of UI item or how it works.
Apparently the user interface works by a sort of magic whose secrets are revealed only to magicians. Part of that magic may have something to do with the hyphen in “drop-down,” so it’s probably best not to meddle. On the other hand, Merriam-Webster lists “drop-down” and “dropdown” as equal variants for the noun form (the adjective form is always hyphenated), so maybe there’s hope for you. Just don’t tell Microsoft: according to the Microsoft guide, the noun form is verboten.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can Chicago please provide clarification on hyphenation when “high school” is used as an adjective? For instance, do you prefer “middle and high school students” or “middle- and high-school students”? Why? One never sees “high-school curriculum” or “high-school classroom” in educational writing, but I don’t fully understand how the rules are applied toward permanent compounds used as adjectives in CMOS. Thank you!
A. It wouldn’t be incorrect to write “middle- and high-school students.” But both “middle school” and “high school” are listed in Merriam-Webster as unhyphenated noun phrases; when they are used attributively, they can remain unhyphenated.
In general, any compound that’s rarely hyphenated in real life can remain unhyphenated as a phrasal adjective if the meaning remains clear without the hyphen. This goes double for any compound that’s listed in a dictionary without the hyphen. So write “middle and high school students.”
On the other hand, if a compound is listed in the dictionary as a hyphenated phrasal adjective, Chicago style gives you permission to drop the hyphen in most cases when the compound follows the noun that it modifies (see CMOS 7.85). For example, a high-strung high school student would be, according to Chicago style, high strung (contra Merriam-Webster).
For specific examples and common exceptions, consult our hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89. If you’re still in doubt, hyphenate before the noun but not after.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Lately I see more and more hyphenated -ly phrases, especially in digital communication—e.g., “a hastily-made decision.” Is this just my cognitive bias inventing a trend that isn’t there, or have your editors noticed more -ly hyphens as well? I know they’re more unnecessary than incorrect, so am I being fussy to mark them for deletion if they’re used consistently and doing no real harm to reader comprehension? Thanks as always for your insight.
A. We haven’t noticed such a trend. Actually many years ago such hyphens were a lot more common than they are today. For example, in the first edition of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), there were about fifty such hyphens. But we’ve evolved since then to recognize the -ly species as mainly adverbial in nature. You can therefore delete any mutant, atavistic hyphens that cross your path.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a recent Q&A the hyphens look like en dashes to me. Are they, and if they are, why?
A. You must be referring to the main entries for “fund-raiser” and “fund-raising” in the screenshot from the first printing of the 11th edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Those do look like en dashes, but they are presented that way for maximum legibility: for one thing, regular hyphens might be confused with the centered dots that indicate places where a hyphen may be added to divide a word at the end of a line. In other words, “fund–rais·er” is easier to interpret at a glance as a hyphenated term than “fund-rais·er” would be. For what it’s worth, at Merriam-Webster.com, the hyphens in main entries are really hyphens. For the entry words online, however, M-W uses the font Playfair Display, which has the advantage of featuring generously long hyphens. This matters a bit less in the online version of the dictionary, where suggested word division is shown on a separate line, below the main entry (and in a different font that happens to feature shorter hyphens). But as this screenshot from the definition for “self-conscious” shows, the extra-long hyphen is strikingly legible:
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have an ongoing disagreement with another scholar that I’m hoping you can help resolve. He suggests that the phrase “early modern” requires hyphenation when used as an adjective (ex.: “early-modern literature”). I would instead say “early modern literature”; is there a right answer here?
A. Your colleague has reason on his side—the hyphen would help readers understand that you’re talking about literature from the early modern period (or, sorry: the early-modern period) rather than modern literature that was early in some other sense of the word. But the latter reading is extremely unlikely, and your colleague’s preference is contrary to established usage. The Oxford English Dictionary includes a subentry under “early” (adj. and n.) for “early modern” as a compound adjective, and none of the cited examples, which date back to 1817, include a hyphen. Verdict: you’re right and he’s wrong.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it “ice-cream sandwich” or “ice cream sandwich”?
A. Let’s first consult Merriam-Webster. There you will find two forms of the compound. The first is an entry for hyphenated “ice-cream,” defined as an adjective meaning “of a color similar to that of vanilla ice cream.” The second is for unhyphenated “ice cream,” the far more popular noun form that you can eat. Now let’s consult the hyphenation table (CMOS 7.89). According to section 2, “noun + noun, single function (first noun modifies second noun),” you would add a hyphen before another noun (“ice-cream sandwich”). But we don’t need the hyphenation table in this case; as we have seen, “ice cream” is an established open compound (or a permanent compound, according to CMOS 7.82). And according to a Google Ngram query, the unhyphenated version is significantly more common in published books. For that matter, the hyphenated variety would be difficult to find on store shelves. (Our preference is for the classic sandwich featuring vanilla ice cream between two chocolate-flavored wafers—whatever the brand.) So “ice cream sandwich” is arguably the better choice.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can an em dash be used to connect two complete sentences? For example: “You don’t need to go to the DMV in person to renew your driver’s license—you can renew it online.” Thank you in advance for your answer!
A. The em dash is the chameleon of punctuation marks. It probably wouldn’t get away with trying to impersonate a question mark or an exclamation point, but it can stand in for just about any of the other standard sentence marks. Your example is (almost) a perfect illustration. It could be written with a semicolon, a colon, or a period (or a pair of parentheses) in place of the dash—but the dash adds a bit of emphasis that’s in keeping with the relatively informal tone. (A dash can also take the place of a comma, but a comma in your example would be considered a comma splice.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Our typesetter applied Chicago’s never-add-a-hyphen-to-a-URL-breaking-over-two-lines rule to hashtags breaking over two lines (specifically “#MeToo”), and the proofreader marked to force them all to one line, which may result in a lot of loose/tight lines since this occurs quite frequently. Would you suggest stetting the original, going with the proofreader’s fix, or hyphenating?
A. We would suggest the following order of preference: (1) prevent the hashtag from breaking (your proofreader’s preference); or (2), where a typefitting problem would be ameliorated only by a break in the hashtag, hyphenate: #Me-/Too. Many URLs contain hyphens; hashtags never do. So whereas it is important never to add a hyphen to a URL, lest it be misinterpreted as part of the string, it’s OK to allow an optional hyphen (also called a soft or discretionary hyphen) in a hashtag at the end of a line—exactly as you might add a hyphen to an ordinary word that would not otherwise include one. Furthermore, whereas a URL that breaks over two lines is usually recognizable as such without the aid of a hyphen (and in printed works, CMOS recommends breaking a URL immediately before an existing hyphen), a hashtag broken at the end of a line without a hyphen is subject to being misread as a hashtag (#Me) followed by a new word (Too).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]