Q. Is the prefix “non” always used without the hyphen now? For example: nonresponse, as opposed to non-response.
A. CMOS style is to close up prefixes unless there is a reason not to. Some editors leave the hyphen in to avoid doubling a letter: non-native, pre-exist, co-owner (the second of which is listed as one word in Merriam-Webster; “nonnative” is also listed, as an equal variant for the hyphenated form). We use an en dash when the prefix goes with an open compound noun: non–United States citizen. And we use a hyphen when the prefix goes with a hyphenated compound: non-English-speaking.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should the word “pre-dewatering” be hyphenated?
A. I reckon hyphenatin’s too good for a word like “pre-dewatering,”
though it surely ought to be put out of its misery somehow.
Seriously, we tend to be suspicious of words beginning with “pre-,” which seem
to be proliferating lately. What is the difference, after all, between presliced bread and plain sliced bread?
If what you want to say is “before dewatering,” then you can use the word “before.”
If you are tempted to say “pre-” because you want to use the phrase to modify
another noun (e.g., in the pre-dewatering period), then you can rephrase to avoid the problem (in the period before dewatering).
If you were to write back and tell me that this word is standard parlance in some technical field, it would make me grumpy,
but I would tell you that Chicago style is to close up all prefixes unless confusion would result.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is an en dash?
A. An en dash is a useful but subtle creature that is longer than a hyphen but shorter than an em dash. (An “em”
is a typesetting measure of width equal to the size of the type. For instance, in eight-point type, an em is eight points
wide. An “en” is half an em.) Our main uses for the en dash are in inclusive numbers
(129–35) and in adjectival phrases that contain an open compound (the post–Civil
War period).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m interested in how you would treat the following issue of double punctuation: U.S.-oriented. I decided to omit the hyphen, which I would have otherwise used, because I didn’t like the way it looked following an abbreviation period.
A. It may look a little odd, but the hyphen is conventional there, because omitting it could cause readers to mistake “oriented” for a verb. If your publication’s style permits, you can follow CMOS and omit the periods: US-oriented.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should a range of specific dates be written using an unspaced en dash, even in headings? Which is correct: 14 March 1879–8 April 1955 or 14 March 1879—8 April 1955?
A. The first is Chicago style (please see CMOS 6.78), but changing the dash to “to” will make the phrase more readable.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A question arose in my proofreading class about the phrase “rock and roll.” Merriam-Webster suggests that when it is used as a noun, no hyphens are required, and when used as an adjective, hyphens are preferred. Our question was whether we should choose one or the other and stick with it through the entire document or alternate between hyphenating and not hyphenating depending upon usage.
A. Good question! The dictionary can’t make this clear, but a good style guide can: you should consistently hyphenate the adjective phrase and consistently leave the noun open. Your proofreading class would benefit from a look at the hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Stylebooks insist on the use of a second comma in place-names that include city and state (he came from Smith’s
Falls, Virginia, to drive the car), but it seems to me that the internal comma serves to separate the town name from the state
name, and not to set off a nonrestrictive phrase, so it need not be followed by the second comma. Does this make sense?
A. Yes, it makes sense, but as we know, that is irrelevant.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a report about the EPA’s “Climate Ready Estuaries”
program. Unfortunately, the program’s formal name has no hyphen, but there are several instances of
“climate ready” as a phrasal adjective throughout the paper. I obviously can’t
insert a hyphen into the program name, and I’m naturally averse to leaving “climate
ready” unhyphenated. But this creates at least the appearance of inconsistency. What’s
a diligent hyphenator to do?
A. The hyphenator needs to chill. Proper names and titles are allowed to diverge from style, and there’s
no shame in that. If the text is consistent within itself, you’ve done your job. If the apparent inconsistency
really bothers you, the obvious remedy is to break style and leave the phrase unhyphenated everywhere.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question about physical quantities in a sentence: “Berry (1979) did more tests on the 2-gram tablets.” Is the hyphen correct?
A. Chicago style is the same for all physical quantities. Please see our hyphenation table (section 1, under “number + noun”). In nontechnical text, we spell out the number (a two-gram tablet); in technical contexts, we abbreviate the measure and omit the hyphen (a 2 g tablet).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If you have to call someone “Jeff-bear,” is the hyphen appropriate, or would
“Jeffbear” suffice? The new Manual doesn’t say.
A. I’m sorry, but when we got to the term “Jeff-bear,” the
Hyphenation Committee couldn’t agree and things started to get nasty, so we left it out. I’m
afraid you’re on your own.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]