Q. I’m editing a list of security recommendations. Would you put a hyphen in “password-protect” when used as a verb?

A. According to the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.96 (sec. 2, under “phrases, verbal”), compound verbs like that one are left open unless entered in Merriam-Webster with a hyphen. There’s no entry there for that verb, hyphenated or otherwise, so we’d write password protect.

If you strongly prefer the hyphen, you could cite the OED, which does include an entry for the term, where it’s hyphenated (password-protect). The OED mostly reflects British usage, but many similar verbs are listed in either Merriam-Webster or the OED with a hyphen (e.g., double-click, fact-check, hot-wire, fast-forward). And though the term password-protect isn’t listed in either Microsoft’s or Apple’s style guide, the similar verb write-protect is listed in Microsoft’s guide (and in the OED) and copy-protect is entered in Apple’s guide (all as of February 3, 2026).

In sum, Chicago style would call for password protect (no hyphen), but the hyphen is nonetheless a reasonable choice recorded in at least one major English-language dictionary and reflected in similar terms.

Q. Would you please confirm that “over the top” is not hyphenated when used as a predicate adjective or adverbial phrase. Example: “It’s extreme,” she said. “Way over the top.”

A. We can confirm that Chicago style doesn’t require hyphens in over the top when it’s used as a predicate adjective (as in your example, where it modifies the implied subject “It” from the previous sentence) or when it’s used an adverb (“they went over the top with their demands”). But you won’t necessarily get this answer from the dictionary.

Merriam-Webster’s entry for that term shows two forms: the phrase over the top (without hyphens) and the adjective over-the-top (with hyphens). That hyphenated adjective, however, isn’t the last word.

In Merriam-Webster’s entries for over-the-top and many other hyphenated compound adjectives, the hyphens are generally presented as if they’re a permanent fixture of such terms. But more than a few of these terms—from clear-cut to well-versed—can be left unhyphenated when they follow rather than precede a noun that they modify, a usage long supported by CMOS. For example, you could refer to “an over-the-top solution” (with hyphens) but “a solution that was over the top” (no hyphens).

This nuance may be falling out of fashion (perhaps because it’s so easy to toggle over to the dictionary for any hyphenation question and copy whatever’s entered there), but it still matters in Chicago style. For more on this subject, see “Compound Modifiers After a Noun: A Postpositive Dilemma,” at CMOS Shop Talk. See also the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.96, under “phrases, adjectival”; for adverbs, see “phrases, adverbial.”

Q. Why are heaven and hell not capitalized like any other named noun? Assuming that these religious terms refer to a place (even if they are metaphorical or metaphysical) why would they not be capitalized like any Walmart? Is capitalization not applied to any specific, named place?

A. Both of those terms are entered with a lowercase h in Merriam-Webster and the OED, and lowercase is the more common form for both in published documents going back more than two hundred years (as this Google Ngram suggests).

Starting with the metaphorical, if you were to write that you were “in Heaven” thanks to an especially tasty milkshake and that you’d have “a Hell of a time” finding anything as good again, those initial caps would stand out as oddly literal. But when these same two words are used in their traditional senses in the context of theology, initial caps would seem normal, especially for Heaven (which Merriam-Webster labels “often Heaven”—capital H—for the religious meanings).

Even if the context isn’t religious, initial caps would still be perfectly appropriate for either term whenever a religious meaning is implied, even loosely, especially if that’s your preference.

See also CMOS 8.110.

Q. How should I capitalize a foreign phrase within a title? For example, in sentence case, “The loi de position as a pedagogical norm.” I recall that an isolated non-English word would be capitalized (“The Loi as a . . .”), as would the first word in an included non-English title, but I can’t find anything regarding a phrase.

A. Except for any words that would be capped in the original language, both words and phrases in sentence-case titles can remain lowercase. The following titles from peer-reviewed journals illustrate this usage:

“The loi de position and the acoustics of French mid vowels,” by Benjamin Storme, in Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2, no. 1 (2017): 64,* https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.300.

“Diachronic evolution of the subordinator kak in Russian,” by Natalia Serdobolskaya and Irina Kobozeva, in Linguistics 62, no. 3 (2024): 691–728, https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0213.

but

“Volk against Kaste: Nondemocratic popular sovereignty in Nazi Germany,” by Luna Sabastian, in Journal of Modern History 96, no. 4 (2024): 842–80, https://doi.org/10.1086/732675.

In that last example, the initial capitals in Volk and Kaste follow the rule for German nouns (see CMOS 11.42). Here are the same three titles in title case (usually preferred in Chicago style for the titles of works):

“The Loi de position and the Acoustics of French Mid Vowels”

“Diachronic Evolution of the Subordinator Kak in Russian”

“Volk Against Kaste: Nondemocratic Popular Sovereignty in Nazi Germany”

As the first example suggests, the non-English terms are in sentence case, according to which the first word and any other word that would normally be capitalized gets an initial cap. Alternatively, we could have applied title case to the French phrase:

“The Loi de Position and the Acoustics of French Mid Vowels”

You can do that if you know the parts of speech in the other language. In the title above, de remains lowercase as a preposition, but the nouns Loi and Position (which would normally be lowercase in a French title when not the first word) get initial caps. See also CMOS 11.28.

__________

* The number 64 is the article ID assigned by Glossa, an online-only open-access journal that isn’t paginated across issues in the traditional way (see CMOS 14.71 for more details). If you were to cite specific pages in a note (from the PDF version, which starts at page 1), you’d want to clarify what the numbers mean: “. . . (2017): pp. 3–4, article no. 64.”

Q. Is the term “Clouds of Glory” (the specific ones that accompanied the Israelites in the desert) a proper noun? And if it is, would you capitalize the transliterated term? E.g.: “The Ananei HaKavod (Clouds of Glory) protected the Israelites as they traveled through the desert.”

A. Unless your sources suggest a clear preference for or against initial capitals for that term, it’s up to you. Whichever you choose, capitals or lowercase, you can usually do the same for the transliterated Hebrew. Lowercase: “ananei hakavod (clouds of glory).” Initial capitals: “Ananei HaKavod (Clouds of Glory).” (Some sources capitalize the Hebrew term as either Ananei haKavod or Ananei Hakavod.) See also CMOS 11.103.

Q. I’m editing a nontechnical text, but I’ll occasionally come across a technical unit of measurement such as °F or m². What is the rule regarding when to use the symbol versus writing out the measurement?

A. Except in tables and similar contexts where abbreviations are the norm (and where they’re often required to make things fit), it’s usually best to spell out abbreviations and symbols for units of measurement and the like in nontechnical prose (e.g., “water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit”; “more than ten square meters”).

See chapter 10 in CMOS for more details and examples (start with the overview in paragraphs 10.1–12). For the use of numerals for exact quantities (as in “32 degrees Fahrenheit”), see paragraph 9.14.

Q. CMOS 14.122 offers advice on how to date an entry in an unpublished diary, but I do not see full instructions for citing such a diary. Could you offer a sample footnote or two?

A. Let’s start with an example of how to cite an unpublished letter in a note (adapted from the examples in CMOS 14.127):

1. George Creel to Colonel House, September 25, 1918, box 31, folder 986, Edward Mandell House Papers, Yale University Library.

That’s American journalist George Creel writing to Edward M. House, an American diplomat and adviser, at that time, to President Woodrow Wilson. The example assumes that House has been identified more fully in the text. (See this article on House in Britannica for the form used in the note; “Colonel” was an honorary rather than a military title.)

A letter is similar to a diary entry, and House’s diaries are also included in the same collection at Yale. House’s diary entry from the same day as the letter could be cited as follows (and note that “Colonel House,” the addressee in the letter from Creel, isn’t used in this context):

2. House, diary, September 25, 1918, Edward Mandell House Papers, Yale University Library, original transcript, ser. 2, vol. 6, https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/12/archival_objects/1748077.

The diary entry, unlike the letter, has been digitized, so we included a URL for the part of the collection where the diary may be found (plus a few more details about the location in the collection). For a diary that isn’t in a public collection, adjust your entry accordingly. Here’s a general-purpose form that can be adapted as needed:

3. So-and-So, diary, February 3, 2026, quoted with the permission of [name of person who owns the diary].

For an alternate date format that may be suitable for works that cite many letters or diary entries, see CMOS 14.122. See also 12.3.