Q. In a scholarly book about popular culture, the author has used several -esque word endings, usually hyphenated. According
to CMOS instructions for the similar constructions of -wide, -like, and -borne, I would be inclined to remove the hyphen. But the
result is unsavory. Also, in the case of open compounds, should the -esque ending acquire an en dash? See the following: Tarantinoesque,
Skeeteresque, Gandalfesque, Billy Idolesque, Sid Vicious–like, John Paul–esque,
The Parallax View–esque.
A. Unsavory indeed. (Your list should appear on the book jacket—who wouldn’t want
to know what the pope is doing in the middle of all the carnage?) The rule is that unless the usage is self-consciously playful,
you may have two -esques per book (no hyphens), but only if they are at least a hundred pages apart. If they involve en dashes,
however, you get none.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’ve tried to Look It Up, and I know other people are curious about this question, too—some
of ’em can’t even sleep at night for worrying about it—so
I’m writing you, O Mighty Editors, to ask where do the hyphens go in the phrase “two
and a half times the price”???
Q. Is it: early-fourth-century-AD amphora? What is proper way to handle early fourth century AD amphora?
A. V-e-r-y carefully. (You were setting me up, right?) The way you’ve styled it is fine. In contexts that exclude mention of BC centuries, however, the “AD” could be taken for granted and omitted, and CMOS 7.87 permits the omission of the first hyphen.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When does one use hyphenation to break words? I already looked at the Manual and still have some questions. I have heard that when the text has a jagged right edge no hyphens should occur and when text is justified it is allowed. What about magazines, leaflets, fliers, catalogs? Can one be more liberal in these and if so is there some guideline on this?
A. These are mostly aesthetic judgments that we leave to a designer’s specification. Different publications might have different tolerances, depending on the look the designer wants to effect. Hyphenation is often necessary in ragged right justification (see CMOS 7.47: “Though hyphens are necessary far more often in justified text, word breaks may be needed in material with a ragged right-hand margin to avoid exceedingly uneven lines”). And Chicago specifications call for no more than three consecutive hyphens.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work for a travel company and we are trying to figure out the proper way to write “eight-night stay.” I feel the number should be spelled out with a hyphen, while other people feel “8 night” is correct. I’ve been trying to find an answer in the style guide, but no luck. Thanks for the help.
A. Chicago style spells out numbers up to one hundred; see CMOS 9.2. Also see our hyphenation table, section 1: number + noun: a hundred-meter race, a 250-page book, a fifty-year project, a three-inch-high statuette, but it’s three inches high. Such compounds are hyphenated before a noun but otherwise open.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a previous Q&A, a curious reader asked you to weigh in on the subject of hyphenated Americans. You responded that “CMOS prefers not to hyphenate Americans of any sort, even when they appear in an adjective phrase.” Were it actually an adjectival phrase, like “apathetic Americans,” I would be inclined to agree; however, I maintain that the examples “African-American,” “Asian-American,” and even “Native-American” (or as I prefer, American-Indian) are all compound proper nouns and must be hyphenated. They are not merely Americans who happen to be African, but rather African-Americans—a distinct ethnic and cultural group. Irrefutable logic?
A. I don’t see any logic in requiring the hyphenation of compound proper nouns when they are used as adjectives. In fact, because they are capitalized, there is no need for additional bells and whistles to signal that they belong together: Rocky Mountain trails, New Hampshire maple syrup, SpongeBob SquarePants lunchbox.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are poets allowed poetic license to do practically anything with punctuation? I ask this in view of a poem by Emily Dickinson
that seems to use the em dash in bewildering and inscrutable ways.
A. Yes, poets are pretty much allowed to do as they please. In my experience, they are sometimes even offended by editing, believing
that their misspellings and inconsistencies are inspired, if not intentional. Of course, if poetry is idiosyncratic to the
point of being annoying, nobody will want to buy it, so there’s some motivation for restraint in the
first place.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A bill has been proposed dealing with price gouging. Would it be correct to write Anti-Price Gouging Act or Anti-Price-Gouging Act? I have seen it both ways.
A. Although hyphens are often optional, I would hate to see a Gouging Act, even if it were an anti-price one, so I would use both hyphens. A fancier fix would be to use an en dash after “anti”: Anti–Price Gouging Act (per CMOS 6.80), although to my eye that still suggests a somewhat gory scene.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi. I work for a county auditor’s office which publishes a voters’ guide for
each general election and primary. Each candidate writes his or her own statement to the voters, as do supporters and opponents
of ballot measures. In the interest of space and fairness, we limit the number of words each writer can use. Our recurring
question: should we count a hyphenated word group (such as “32-year-old”) as one
word or three? I’m in favor of counting such constructions as one word. What’s
your vote? Thanks!
A. Those three words are hyphenated only because they form an adjective phrase. It would hardly be fair to dock candidate A
(“a 32-year-old teacher”) one word for “32-year-old”
and candidate B (“who first ran for office when she was 32 years old”) three words
for “32 years old.” On the other hand, an argument for your system is that a computer
might count “32-year-old” as one word, and you might feel you needed the convenience
and objectivity of computer counting. But if your motives are fairness and logic, I would count each word as a word, whether
it’s hyphenated or not. (An exception might be words with prefixes, which Chicago style does not hyphenate
but many writers do: pre-date, anti-war, etc.) Good luck—either way, you’ll probably
have objections from the candidates.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My reputable dictionaries give “transpacific” and “transatlantic”
but not “transindian.” On its own, “his transindian voyage”
would probably be ambiguous, but if I were to write “his transpacific, transatlantic, and transindian
voyages were remarkable feats,” there would appear to be little risk of ambiguity. Would you consider
that acceptable? If not, how should I express such a thing?
A. Yes, Chicago editors might opt for what we call “regional consistency” here by
styling all three compounds in the same way rather than hyphenate “trans-Indian.”
Or we might hyphenate all three, if we thought there would be any confusion about the unfamiliar “transindian.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]