Skip to main content

punctuation - To hyphenate or not?


As a non-native speaker of English and an engineer by training, I always get confused about hyphenation and almost always end up referring to Google every time I need to make that decision.


Does anybody know of a concise, comprehensive style guide to hyphenation that explains this rather complex issue, once and for all?



Answer



Asking for something that is both concise and comprehensive is, unfortunately, contradictory. The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition devotes one full page (5 numbered sections, 6.38-42) to "general principles" of hyphenating compound words, but then also goes on to list a 13-page table of common forms, when to hyphenate them, when not to, and when to make exceptions to other parts of the table.


To summarize the relevant segments for you, though:


6.38: The trend in spelling compound words has been away from the use of hyphens; there seems to be a tendency to spell compounds solid [i.e. unhyphenated] as soon as acceptance warrants their being considered permanent compounds.


6.39: When a temporary compound is used as an adjective before a noun, it is often hyphenated to avoid misleading the reader. (e.g. "a fast sailing ship": is it a "ship that is sailing fast", in which case you should hyphenate it, or "a sailing ship that is fast", in which case you should leave it unhyphenated.)


6.40: Where the compound adjective follows the noun it modifies, there is usually little to no risk of ambiguity or hesitation, and the hyphen may be safely omitted. [There are, of course, exceptions to this, as in "her reply was thought provoking."]


6.41: [contrary to its earlier positions,] The University of Chicago Press now takes the position that the hyphen may be omitted in all cases where there is little or no risk of ambiguity or hesitation.


6.42: There are scores of other rules for spelling compound words, but many of them are all but useless because of the multitude of exceptions. See table 6.1 [that 13-page behemoth of a table mentioned above] for some of the more dependable rules.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more