Q. “One man-one woman family.” I’m editing a work and this looks wrong, but I can’t say why. Should it be a dash instead of a hyphen?
A. You’re right: the reason it looks wrong is that hyphens connect words to make phrases, and in your quotation, “man-one” doesn’t make sense as a phrase. The phrases you want to connect are “one man” and “one woman”: a one-man, one-woman family.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it necessary or preferred to hyphenate complex phrasal adjectives like “master-chef-turned-food-writer Anthony Bourdain describes the Tuscan countryside as . . .”? Or does CMS prefer “master chef turned food writer Anthony Bourdain describes the Tuscan countryside as . . .”? I am having a hard time seeing how anyone would misread the phrase without hyphens. Thanks for your help!
A. CMOS is silent on the issue. Although Merriam-Webster (s.v. “turn”) omits the hyphens in the noun (“doctors turned authors”), Chicago style favors hyphenating phrasal adjectives before a noun. If you’re certain the modifier is clear without hyphens, you might leave them out, but rephrasing is the best alternative to excessive hyphenation: “Anthony Bourdain, master chef turned food writer, describes the Tuscan countryside as . . .”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please settle an internal argument. Which punctuation is correct for the following title: “Transitioning to More-Rigorous Assessments” or “Transitioning to More Rigorous Assessments”?
A. Please see CMOS 7.89, section 2, under “adverb not ending in ly + participle or adjective” for a similar example (“most-skilled” versus “most skilled”). The hyphen affects the meaning, so you must choose accordingly. “More-Rigorous” refers to the quality of the assessments; “More Rigorous” could mean the same thing, or it could refer to a larger quantity of rigorous assessments. As always, rewording is better than relying on punctuation. “Making Assessments More Rigorous” and “Using Rigorous Assessments More Frequently” are clear.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m taking a popular online copyediting course. One of my answers to a quiz was marked wrong because I failed to identify “early-warning system” as an instance of incorrect hyphen usage. According to the answer key, this is incorrect because adverbs ending in -ly should not be followed with hyphens. I think early is used as an adjective in this example and should therefore take a hyphen.
A. You’re right. A hyphen after early may also be needed to prevent ambiguity: early voting statistics aren’t necessarily early-voting statistics.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does hyphenation render a diaeresis redundant? Because it wrapped to another line, the word naïveté was rendered as na-ïveté. Should this appear in print as na-iveté?
A. No. Hyphenation imposed at line breaks in typesetting should be regarded as temporary and invisible rather than part of the word. You can bet that if a proofreader were to remove that diaeresis, in the next round someone else’s correction would cause the word to end up whole again. Better to leave well enough alone.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do I treat “as and when required” with a suspended hyphen when adjectival? E.g.: “an as- and when-required basis.” Or join up: “an as-and-when-required basis.” Unfortunately, we’re stuck with transcribing substantially verbatim legislative debates.
A. Ick. If you were able to reword this construction, you could simply write “when required.” But since you’re stuck, it’s probably better to quote the offending phrase than wrangle with hyphens: an “as and when required” basis.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This is going to throw some people, but here goes: I’m almost fifty, British school system education. We were taught that when an already hyphenated word appears at the end of a line, the hyphen should carry over into the new line:
After they were away for so long, their house
-warming party was a wonderful surprise.
Since the project I’m working on is British grammar, and yet I deal only with US people, this is a new one on them. Any input?
A. If this ever was British style (doubtful), it certainly isn’t now. If you can find an example in a published book or newspaper, do send it. Meanwhile, US style begins a line with a hyphen only rarely, such as for a broken URL.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question about the use of a hyphen in a compound modifier after a noun if a form of the verb “to be” is used. For example, “He is a well-known man” is hyphenated because the compound modifier comes before the noun. What about “The man is well known”? I’ve looked at various sources and they seem to contradict one another.
A. The placement of a compound modifier after a noun frequently involves the use of a “to be” verb, so yes, the rule applies in that situation. In your example, “well known” is open after the noun. You can find more examples in the hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a coworker—in a different department, I’m relieved to say—who insists that superlatives and comparatives should be hyphenated (for example, “That is the most-ridiculous rule in the history of the written word”). This particular coworker is, alas, in a position of considerable authority, and has cajoled (and, where necessary, bullied) others into following her overly hyphenated copyediting style. I have looked in vain for some sort of authoritative explanation regarding superlatives and comparatives, to no avail. I sincerely hope you will come to my rescue.
A. You and your colleague can find answers in our hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89, section 2, “Compounds according to parts of speech.” The hyphen is in fact sometimes needed, but compounds with more, most, and so forth may be left open unless ambiguity threatens:
the most ridiculous rules (most in number)
but
the most-ridiculous rules (most in wackiness)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The clarification on compound color hyphenation in the 16th edition is greatly appreciated, but my coeditors and I still
disagree on a problem common in fiction: do general modifiers such as “dark,”
“light,” or “bright” count as compounds
when used with a color (“dark-blue tie,” akin to “midnight-blue
tie”) or as a set of distinct adjectives following Chicago’s preference for minimal
hyphenation (“dark blue tie,” akin to “old blue tie”)?
A. It depends on their meaning. If the blue is dark (or midnight), it is a color compound and can take a hyphen. But “old”
refers to the tie rather than some outdated shade of blue, so “old blue” is not
a compound, and a hyphen (“old-blue”) makes no sense. Consider too that when the
meanings of two versions (“dark blue tie” and “dark-blue
tie”) are so close as to be indistinguishable, it might not be worth your time to worry about it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]