Q. “We are more than ready to analyze plan design changes.” For clarity would you
recommend inserting a hyphen between plan and design?
A. Yes, that’s a good solution, but perhaps not the best one. You have three words in a row that can be
read as verbs (plan, design, changes) following the actual verb. I would rewrite the sentence so these words read more clearly
as nouns: We are more than ready to analyze changes in the plan design.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it prework or pre-work (for work that is to be done before a meeting)?
A. Prework is a pretty silly concept, if you think about it. I mean, is it work or not? It would be like preeating. How about
calling it “preparation”?
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am copyediting a parent resource website and this comes up a lot. How do I hyphenate “this class
is for three- to four-year-olds”? Is that correct? I have seen it as: three-to-four year-olds.
A. Your first version is the right one. “Three-to-four year-olds” would mean three
or four children who are a year old.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.]