Q. Per paragraph 7.92 in CMOS, some compound adjectives keep a hyphen even after a noun, including compounds with “ill” (also covered under “ill” in the hyphenation table). For example, we could be correct in writing this: “The scene was ill-described.” In cases where the compound is not in play, I assume we stick to dropping the hyphen, since we’re now working with just an adverb + verb. For example: “Gruesome ill described the scene.” Is this correct? I suspect I’m overthinking things. (Revising the sentence beyond mechanical correctness is out of the question in this client’s case.)

A. Though CMOS doesn’t cover this specific case, common sense does suggest that you wouldn’t need a hyphen when an adverb is paired with a past participle used as a verb rather than as an adjective. You could try substituting a different adverb for ill to test this hunch: “Gruesome now described the scene.” A hyphen would be out of place there.

But the wording in your sentence is unusual—ill is rarely paired with verbs other than afford, treat, or use—so hyphenation might be helpful. The expression ill afford is in Merriam-Webster without a hyphen, but that phrase generally has only one form: can (or could) ill afford. By contrast, both ill-treat and ill-use are entered as hyphenated verbs, giving you a couple of models to follow.

Verdict? A hyphen in your example, though not strictly required (see also CMOS 7.96, sec. 2, under “phrases, verbal”), may help clarify that ill belongs with the verb. You could add one (“Gruesome ill-described the scene”) unless your client prefers otherwise.

Q. In Spanish text, titles of books are set in sentence case, but should they also be set in italics? And how about titles of book series and the like?

A. If you’re applying Chicago style, and often even if you’re not, book titles are italicized in Spanish-language contexts, whereas series titles are usually in roman (regular) type—both as they would be in English.

So, whether your text is in Spanish or English, you would refer to The Chicago Manual of Style (note the title case, usually retained for English titles in Spanish-language contexts) but el (or “the” in English contexts) Manual de estilo Chicago-Deusto (a version of CMOS adapted for Spanish and published in 2013 by the University of Deusto, or Universidad de Deusto, in partnership with the University of Chicago Press; as with books in English, an initial article isn’t always part of the title).

As for a book series, you would refer to (for example) Bonsái (Editorial Anagrama, 2006), a novel by Alejandro Zambra published as part of the series Narrativas hispánicas. Again, these novel and series titles would be treated the same whether your text is in English or Spanish. Titles of series, though, occasionally appear in title case, which is how names of periodicals and publishers are usually treated (e.g., the journal Revista Mexicana de Sociología or the publisher Fondo de Cultura Económica). When in doubt, follow the usage in the source.

For more guidance, consult Chicago-Deusto. Additional resources are available online from the Real Academia Española, including the freely accessible Libro de estilo de la lengua española (a Spanish stylebook first published in 2018); in that guide, see “Clase de letra” (on styling text), and especially “Cursiva demarcativa para delimitar expresiones denominativas” (on italics for titles of books and the like).

In CMOS, see paragraphs 11.67–76. For the titles of book series, which are sometimes in italics, see 8.178.

Q. What is the rule on hyphenating multiple colors? For example, it would be “a black-and-white photo,” but you never see any other color combinations hyphenated (like “a pink-and-yellow scarf”).

A. Putting something in black and white has been a thing for centuries; according to Merriam-Webster, the noun phrase black and white to mean writing or print dates to 1569. Once color photography became popular, the adjective black-and-white—with hyphens—was probably inevitable.

A pink-and-yellow scarf, on the other hand, or one that’s red and white or blue and green or any other combination you can think of? Those are arbitrary combinations. But you should hyphenate any one of them as a preceding modifier regardless (as at the start of this paragraph), at least if you’re following Chicago style. Hyphens will make it more obvious that you aren’t referring, for example, to a pink and a yellow scarf.

This issue is not, however, black and white. For more on this subject (including why we’ve left the hyphens out of black and white in the first sentence of this paragraph), see “Compound Modifiers After a Noun: A Postpositive Dilemma,” at CMOS Shop Talk.

Q. I’m reviewing an academic research paper in which the authors describe their process and their findings in the present tense. “We evaluate . . . We analyze . . . We review.” Obviously, these actions have already taken place, so I lean toward changing the sentences to past tense. But perhaps it’s acceptable to use the present tense in academic research, similar to the use of historical present tense in literature. Please help!

A. The historical present can be a reasonable choice for things that can be consulted by others, starting with the paper itself. For example, “In this report, we evaluate three different theories of . . .” Other sources can likewise be referred to in this way: “Smith (2021) argues that . . .”

But for actions as opposed to text, a form of past tense is usually best: “We reviewed the flight logs at five major international airports . . .” The past tense is also usually best when referring to something as predating something else: “In a previous paper, Smith (2020) argued for . . .” Or, “In previous papers, Smith (2018, 2020) has argued for . . .”

If in doubt, default to a form of the past tense, which would work well in any of the examples in this answer except for the first (though you could switch to past if, for example, you were to change “In” to “For”: “For this report, we evaluated . . .”). But if the paper is going to be published in a journal or with a specific publisher, ask that journal or publisher about any preferences related to verb tenses; also look at recently published articles in your field.

Q. I am writing a poem with the phrase “marine helicopters”: “In the silvery drizzle, / a pair of Marine helicopters / flying low on maneuvers . . .” These are indeed helicopters of the United States Marine Corps. Would “marine” or “Marine” be correct in this circumstance?

A. In documents published by or for the US Marines, it’s “Marine,” with a capital M, whether the term is singular or plural and regardless of the part of speech. But outside the Marine Corps (and unless the focus of the text is the US military), the word “marine,” like “navy” or “naval,” can usually be lowercased when used by itself as a noun (“a marine,” “the marines”) or adjective (“a marine helicopter”).

In poetry, you have options. If you want to nudge your readers toward interpreting that line as referring to the US Marines, then a capital M is probably best. But if you’d like to retain a note of ambiguity, leaving the term more open to evoking the colors of the sea and the like, you could go with a lowercase m. That’s up to you.

See also CMOS 8.113, which treats capitalization conventions for armies, battalions, and the like, including the US Marines. For “US” (normally spelled without periods in Chicago style), see 10.4 and 10.37.

Q. I’m looking for confirmation on how to capitalize a word in a title that has a portion of the word in parentheses—e.g., Peter Adey, “If Mobility Is Everything Then It Is Nothing: Towards a Relational Politics of (Im)mobilities.” Is “(Im)mobilities” OK as is, rather than “(Im)Mobilities” (which looks odd to me)? Thanks!

A. If something looks odd to you, there’s a chance it will look odd to others (which is why it’s a good idea to take any objection to something in your work seriously, even if you end up keeping things as is). In case it helps, we think the version with the capital M looks weird, so as far as we’re concerned, your hunch is right: “(Im)mobilities” is the way to go.

And don’t be misled by the Chicago citation generated via the “Cite this article” link at the Taylor & Francis page for the Adey article. It’s clear that the initial caps in the article title in that author-date citation have been applied automatically (overriding the lowercase in the original title for “is” and “it” but going a step too far next to the parenthesis).