Q. According to CMOS table 6.1 (14th ed.), a noun plus a participle would have a hyphen, and the prefix “non” is a closed compound. So, my question is how would you hyphenate the word “nonlife-threatening” or would you avoid such a word altogether? Thanks.
A. I would use two hyphens (non-life-threatening), both in the spirit of CMOS 6.80 and because “nonlife-threatening” connotes the “threat of nonlife” (i.e., death), which is the opposite of the intended meaning. In general we aim to use hyphens to promote clarity, and we don’t stand on the rules if confusion results.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The menu in our cafeteria shows that enchiladas are available “Tues.–Fri.”
However, when I ordered one on a Wednesday, I was informed that enchiladas are available on Tuesday AND Friday, not Tuesday
THROUGH Friday. When I informed the cafeteria manager that this was incorrect, she seemed shocked and refused to change the
sign. Please help determine who is correct!
A. Although the sign was incorrect, I’m not sure you should annoy the person who provides the enchiladas.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m copyediting a novel in which the author has gone hyphen-mad. She is fond of such terms as “horse-yard,” “juniper-wood,” “yard-gate,” “cedar-grove,” and so on. I want to defer to an author’s stylistic preferences, but I feel too much is too much. In most cases, the meaning seems perfectly clear without a hyphen. What can I say to this author?
A. Are you working for a publisher? If so, they will have guidelines that you can wave at the author. (Here, we follow Merriam-Webster.) If not, you should let her know what source you follow for hyphenated compounds and ask if she has any objections. If you need to justify your method to the author, try to find cases where she’s inconsistent and explain that in order to arbitrate, you’ll be using a dictionary. Most authors are in favor of consistency, and will understand that following a reference book is the best guarantee of this. Point out that an abundance of hyphens can give a jittery feel to a narration. (A fiction writer will fear that.) Finally, make sure she understands that the same phrase can appear with and without a hyphen depending on its use as a noun or adjective, and that you’ll be marking them accordingly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS, I am experiencing a meltdown at work. My colleagues believe that “test taker” is one word, while I believe that it should be hyphenated as “test-taker.” I am also unclear, after reading the CMOS, about another form of this phrase, “test taking.” If I write, “It is an important strategy for test taking,” should “test-taking” be hyphenated? Thank you for your help. This has become a highly debated issue within our office and I would love to resolve it once and for all.
A. Following Chicago style, we would hyphenate “test taking” only when it’s an adjective. Otherwise, we would keep it open. We follow Merriam-Webster for closed compound nouns and adjectives, and “testtaker” doesn’t appear there. Obviously, the hyphenation of compounds is far too complex and fluid to be strictly covered by a set of rules. Check Merriam-Webster, and if the compound isn’t there, then consider whether a hyphen is needed in order to avoid confusion. If it’s not, then omit the hyphen. It might help to read the hyphenation guide for compounds, combining forms, and prefixes in CMOS 7.89.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please help! My British colleagues keep giving me books to proofread (for US publication, so they should be in American style)
in which phrases like “parent-teacher relationship” and “human-animal
bond” contain an en dash rather than a hyphen. Chicago says that if either “parent”
or “teacher” were an open compound (such as, I suppose, “math
teacher”), an en dash would be appropriate—so am I to conclude that since this
is not the case I should use a hyphen? As far as I can tell, none of the examples in the section on hyphenation pertain to
this construction. Are the en dashes correct, or are they just British?
A. Your British colleagues might be following Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors, and Proofreaders , 4th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), which advises using what it calls “en rules”
“to convey a distinction in sense” (section 6.12.1; note that it is also the common
British practice to use an en dash with a word space on either side where American publishers would use an em dash closed
up to the surrounding words). This allows one to write, for example, “US–British
relations” to mean relations between the United States and Britain. The en dash is supposed to convey
something more than simply relations that are characterized or modified, independently, by the United States and Britain.
And while editors here like such a subtle distinction, we do not believe that it is useful enough to mandate, and therefore
we prefer the hyphen (e.g., US-British relations). En dashes instead of hyphens should be used between words in running text
only as a last resort—usually to bridge an open compound, as you suggest—and even
then it’s probably fair to assume that most readers will see a hyphen.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are there compounds that are always hyphenated, such as “up-to-date” or “step-by-step,” or are these only hyphenated when modifying another word, as in “up-to-date rules” or “step-by-step procedures”? My company is writing “We’ll walk you through it step by step,” and I thought that it should be “We’ll walk you through it step-by-step.”
A. We prefer to keep such commonplace or even clichéd phrases, some of which are listed in hyphenated form in standard dictionaries, open when they appear after the noun they modify or when they are used adverbially:
step-by-step recovery (where “step-by-step” is a phrasal adjective preceding the noun it modifies)
but
feelings that were out of date (because “out of date” follows the noun it modifies)
and
walking across the continent step by step (because “step by step” is functioning as a phrasal adverb)
See CMOS 5.92, 5.93, and 5.161 for more information. For examples, see the hyphenation table at 7.89.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I seem to remember from somewhere that breaking a word from the recto page to the verso page should be avoided. I can’t find such a rule in The Chicago Manual of Style. Is this a figment of my imagination? Also, what about breaking a word from the verso page to the recto page?
A. Chicago allows breaks from verso to recto but advises avoiding breaks from recto to verso if at all possible. (Sometimes such a break may be needed to prevent an especially loose line.) See paragraph 2.116 in CMOS 17 for these and related considerations.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In sports, does the score require a hyphen or should you use an en dash? What about decisions on the Supreme Court?
A. Let’s say the Washington Wizards beat the Los Angeles Lakers 100–99. Normally, the en dash is used to express a range—from x up to and including y. The expression 100–99 does not express a range—it expresses two separate values. Nonetheless, we’ve decided that because we say “one hundred to ninety-nine,” an en dash is better than a hyphen. In the same vein, when the Supreme Court decides something five votes to four, use an en dash rather than a hyphen: 5–4 (not 5-4). For a fuller statement of the rule and more examples, see CMOS 6.78.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it your recommendation to still use a hyphen in a phrases like “mid-1985”? If so, then would it be best to write “mid- to late 1985”?
A. We are still apt to consider mid to be a prefix meaning “middle” in expressions like “mid-1985,” hence the hyphen. The status of prefix means that mid- forms one word in combination, unless it is joined to a capital letter or a numeral, in which case a hyphen is employed: midsentence, midcentury; but mid-July, mid-1985. Your solution of “mid- to late 1985” (short for “mid-1985 to late 1985”) is impeccably logical, though some editors prefer the rather odd “mid-to-late 1985,” because the stray hyphen might be misleading to some readers.
Perhaps life would be simpler if we could just say, following Merriam-Webster, that mid is not a prefix; rather, it is an adjective (sometimes it is an adverb or preposition) of the type seen in expressions like “mid Atlantic,” but it tends toward hyphenated combination form. That would allow us to write “mid-1985,” giving in to the tendency toward combination, and “mid to late 1985,” arguing that without proximity, there’s no attraction.
I would recommend having it both ways, especially if you don’t like either of the “mid to late” solutions involving hyphens. Continue to grant prefix status to mid, allowing words like “midpurgatory,” but when mid strays from its partner, drop the hyphen, allowing “mid to late 1985,” an expression that I think is entirely clear (it’s essentially the equivalent of “middle to late 1985”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do you recommend using a hyphen when spelling out the time of day?
A. Our rule is to reserve hyphens for the naturally hyphenated cardinal number:
eight forty-five; five fifteen; three thirty
But add a hyphen when the time of day precedes and modifies a noun, unless part of the expression is already hyphenated:
three-thirty train; eight forty-five appointment
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]