Q. I have a question about line breaks. I work a lot with German authors and German presses (and then also German conventions and German passages in the texts I am editing). In German, one is supposed to avoid ending a line with a period that is not at the end of a sentence. This means anytime a period is used for an abbreviation, it should be followed by a nonbreaking space so that it will not appear at the end of a line. The idea is that this prevents the reader from misreading the period as the end of the sentence. If I understand correctly, Chicago does not suggest a similar convention for line breaks, correct? Thank you for your reply!
A. You are right. Though CMOS covers line breaks in English (in chapter 7) and a few other languages (including German, in paragraphs 11.42, 11.43, and 11.44), we don’t include any recommendation that says you must carry an abbreviation that ends in a period over to the next line when the sentence continues beyond the abbreviation.
So a line is allowed to end with an “a.m.” or “Jr.” or the like that occurs in the middle of a sentence. But there are some exceptions. For example, the initials in a name like P. D. James are best kept together with a nonbreaking space (see CMOS 6.121), and some typesetters will use a nonbreaking space to prevent a compound like “St. Louis” or “Dr. Smith” from breaking at the end of a line.
And if an author or typesetter wanted to apply the convention you describe for passages of German text in one of our English-language publications, we wouldn’t object. For one thing, the convention seems well suited to German, where all nouns are capitalized, making it more difficult to recognize that a word following a period isn’t necessarily the beginning of a new sentence. Those who don’t read German won’t notice; those who do read it might appreciate the nicety.
Q. Does CMOS have recommendations for how to divide a mailing address in running text? For example, “You can visit the artist’s childhood home at 123 Central Avenue.” Is it permissible to end with “123” on one line and begin the next with “Central Avenue”? Or should “123” be moved down to the next line?
A. Chicago permits breaking a line at a space in almost all cases, with a few notable exceptions:
- before and after the middle of three dots in an ellipsis: . . .
- between an ellipsis and a mark of punctuation that follows: . . . ?
- between contiguous quotation marks or apostrophes: “ ‘like this’ ”
- between consecutive initials in a personal name: P. G. Wodehouse
In all such cases, a nonbreaking space may be used to prevent the break (see CMOS 6.121).
It’s also advisable to avoid a break between a numeral and an abbreviated unit of measurement (3 m); after a parenthetical enumerator like “(1)” or “(a)” in a run-in list; before (but not after) a middle initial; and before “Jr.” or “Sr.” or “II,” “III,” and the like at the end of a name. But with the exception of ellipses and quotation marks or apostrophes, preventing such breaks isn’t usually a priority online. In print, where the breaks become permanent, more fine-tuning may be appropriate (see CMOS 6.120).
But no intervention is necessary after a number in a street address.
Q. I’m editing a book on cross-examination. The word cross-examination occurs hundreds of times and is causing headaches for the compositor in terms of word division at the ends of lines. Can cross-examination be divided as cross-exami- or any other way? Also, is a compositor expected to know the fine points of word division? In the production chain, who normally catches word-division problems?
A. Each house has its own set of rules for composition. Compositors are expected to know the fine points of word division, but they are also expected to follow each client’s rules. While it would be better not to divide “cross-examination” anywhere except after “cross,” that is probably impossible if the word appears many times. Good typesetters are usually the best judges of when a bad break is the best choice. A proofreader can request that the break be closed up, but the result might be even uglier. You can see Chicago’s hyphenation rules on this page in CMOS Online, in figure 3.
Q. I have read through your section on word division (in chapter 7 of CMOS), but still have a lingering question. Is it acceptable to split a word between pages? I always thought that it was not.
A. Yes, it’s acceptable to split a word at the bottom of a page—but watch out for a hyphen at the end of a recto page that might prompt the reader to mentally supply the wrong ending while turning the page: Her hideous scene at the thrift shop, which had gotten the clerk fired, had left her with many re- [turn the page] painted leg lamps around the house.
Q. If I cannot avoid splitting the word biology at the end of a line, do I really split it between syllables as all the online dictionaries suggest, biol-ogy, and not according to its etymology, bio-logy?
A. That’s right. Words are divided by pronunciation, not etymology. To learn about word division, please see CMOS 7.36–47.
Q. Is it acceptable to divide the name of a state or city at the end of a line, as in a column of a three-column page, when
not dividing the name would leave a lot of white on the line?
A. We do it. Most publishers have typesetting guidelines that tell whether such breaks are permissible. Almost anything that’s
set in three columns will benefit from generous hyphenation, which helps avoid the ugliness you describe, especially if the
columns are fully justified. If the right margin is ragged, you can get away with fewer hyphens.
Q. On the galley proofs of my book, the computer divided the name Josephine Bellver as “Josephine Bel-lver” at the end of a line. It seems to me it should be “Josephine Bell-ver”, if it must be divided at all. What is your opinion?
A. Chicago favors a system of word division based on pronunciation and more or less demonstrated by the recommendations in Merriam-Webster. We also discourage breaking names. But if “Bellver” must be broken, certainly it should be Bell-ver (assuming that it would be rather difficult to pronounce the name in question as “Bel-lver”). For more on this issue, see CMOS 7.42.