Q. I’ve been having a discussion about the use of the term “water-resistant.” Chicago style dictates the use of a hyphen in such a compound only when it precedes a noun. However, the term is recognized by Merriam-Webster.
Q. Does CMOS have an official position on hyphenating “the then” when used to indicate something or someone’s former status?
Q. How would you treat “over apologize” in this sentence? “Be careful not to over apologize.”
Q. Hi CMOS—I work in mortgages, and with the increasing popularity of a “digital lending process” come electronic signatures. No one in my company can seem to agree on how to style this particular term, and as you can imagine, it comes up quite a lot. I’ve seen it four ways:
e-sign(ature)
E-sign(ature)
e-Sign(ature)
eSign(ature)
As I’m working on our in-house style guide, I’m also having to decide how it’s styled in a title or section heading of a policy document. Currently, I have eSignature as a noun and e-sign as a verb, and when it’s a verb capitalized in a title or section heading, it’s E-sign. I need to decide on four styles: (1) noun in a sentence, (2) noun in a title or at the beginning of a sentence, (3) verb in a sentence, and (4) verb in a title or at the beginning of a sentence. This is making my eyes cross. Am I good with what I have, or do you have a suggestion? I’ve consulted M-W and turned up nothing.
Q. Is word-for-word hyphenated? Is side-by-side hyphenated?
Q. If someone has a compound surname like “De Chicago-Smith,” do we use an en dash? I understand the rationale, but I think it looks weird (but who cares what I think?). What about “De Chicago-Von Suedkurve Auf Der CSS&SBRR,” for example?
Q. Forgive me for what might be an obvious and maybe annoying question, but what do you recommend when your advice seems to differ from Merriam-Webster when it comes to hyphenation of prefixes?
Q. Our office compiles, edits, and publishes the laws and statutes for the state legislature. Some people in the office are averse to hyphenating phrasal adjectives, particularly ones that consist of open compounds, because they feel “these are terms recognized by everyone and are unnecessary to hyphenate. There is no confusion when reading ‘wild rice industry,’ ‘general fund appropriation,’ ‘high school student.’ These terms are instantly recognizable.” A bit presumptuous, no? A good editor helps the reader, especially when it comes to law and litigation. How does one decide whether a term is known to everyone in the world?
Q. According to the CMOS hyphenation guide, number + noun modifiers call for a hyphen, but what about noun + number modifiers? I’m interested in cases such as “stage-2 cancer” versus “stage 2 cancer” and “stage-C3 HIV” versus “stage C3 HIV.” My suspicion is that the answer is in fact to forgo the hyphen.
Q. Hi, I am working on a publication which uses imperial measurements and have been asked to provide the metric equivalent in parentheses. I am not sure how to deal with this when the measurements form a hyphenated compound adjective before a noun. Using an example from your hyphenation table, three-inch-high statuette, would the hyphen placement in the following conversion be reasonable? three-inch (eight-centimeter)-high statuette? Many thanks.