Q. Is word-for-word hyphenated? Is side-by-side hyphenated?
A. They are both hyphenated only if they precede the word that they modify: There were side-by-side mirrors. The mirrors were side by side.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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?
A. Although a simple hyphenated name normally takes (no surprise) a hyphen, a name with multiple appendages might be able to pull off the slightly longer en dash. Anyone with such a dazzling name as “De Chicago–Von Suedkurve Auf Der CSS&SBRR” deserves all the dashes and doodads they want. (And we care what you think.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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?
A. Here at CMOS we follow our own hyphenation advice. That’s more or less the point of coming up with it. Merriam-Webster is the backup resource that we use when CMOS doesn’t state a specific style.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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?
A. It’s not easy. You must send out a survey to everyone in the world and wait for them all to reply. Meanwhile, the rest of us will struggle along with common sense, CMOS 7.84, and a good dictionary.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.
A. You’re right—no hyphen. You can find this advice in the “noun + numeral or enumerator” section of the hyphenation guide, which says, “Both noun and adjective forms always open” and gives the following examples:
a type A executive
type 2 diabetes
size 12 slacks
a page 1 headline
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.
A. Unfortunately, that is not an option. Either eliminate the adjective (in this case, high) or reword: a statuette three inches (eight centimeters) high.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In “number + noun” of the CMOS hyphenation table, you say “Hyphenated before a noun, otherwise open.” You include the following examples: “a one-and-a-half-inch hem” and “one and a half inches.” As “inch” is a noun and “one and a half” is a number/quantity, why not “one-and-a-half inches”?
A. That part of the table is explaining what to do when a “number + noun” modifies another noun. In “one and a half inches,” inches is not modified by a “number + noun” phrase; it is merely modified by a number: one and a half. Therefore no hyphens. After all, we don’t hyphenate phrases like “a hem of two inches.” In phrases like “a one-and-a-half-inch hem,” the noun hem is modified by a “number + noun” phrase: “one-and-a-half-inch,” which is therefore hyphenated, as we would hyphenate “two-inch hem.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m in the process of editing an article and the author is using a neologism of sorts. He’s taken the word digital and is using it as a verb—digitaling. The author is insisting on adding a hyphen (digital-ing) so that it’s clearer to the reader. I think it’s unnecessary, as there would be no confusion without it.
A. I agree that the hyphen is unneeded. (And I hope the text gives an excellent reason for the new word—otherwise, it looks pretty silly!)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear Chicago experts, can you please help resolve this hyphenation issue? Should it be “worm composting expert” or “worm-composting expert”? Should it be “worm composting master” or “worm-composting master”? Thank you very much.
A. Use a hyphen; it makes it clear that the expert or master is not a worm.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How would you punctuate an invented noun? I am editing a theoretical work that uses adjective + -ness to come up with new forms of abstract concepts along the lines of Americanness and pinkness. For both of those words, I would close the suffix and omit the hyphen; my author has them separated with a hyphen (pink-ness). Which is correct style?
A. Chicago style leans the way you do, generally closing up suffixes unless a spelling is awkward. Pinkness and Americanness seem pretty straightforward without hyphens, but that’s an editorial decision rather than a pronouncement that they’re “correct.” If a word isn’t in the dictionary, the writer must decide on a styling, knowing that others might choose differently.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]