This past spring I started an occasional series devoted to Sturgis’s Laws. “Sturgis” is me. The “Laws” aren’t Rules That Must Be Obeyed. Gods forbid, we writers and editors have enough of those circling in our heads and ready to pounce at any moment. These laws are more like hypotheses based on my observations over the years. They’re mostly about writing and editing. None of them can be proven, but they do come in handy from time to time. Here’s #5:
Hyphens are responsible for at least 90 percent of all trips to the dictionary. Commas are responsible for at least 90 percent of all trips to the style guide.
Policy making, policy-making, or policymaking? If “policy making” is the noun version, do you hyphenate “policy-making process”? How about “policymaker”? One word, two words, or hyphenated word? “Prodemocracy forces” or “pro-democracy forces”? “Back-seat driver” or “backseat driver”?
So you trot off to the dictionary. This is where the real fun starts. Dictionaries can be internally inconsistent: “policyholder” is one word, but “policy maker” is nowhere to be found, which generally means it’s two. The American Heritage Dictionary offers “policymaking or policy-making” but recommends “policymaker” for the person who makes the policy.
For even more fun, consult a second dictionary. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate, aka MW, makes “backseat” one word, both as noun and adjective: “The dog sat in the backseat” and “He’s a terrible backseat driver.” American Heritage doesn’t list “backseat,” so it’s safe to assume that it considers it two words: “The dog sat in the back seat” and (probably) “He’s a terrible back-seat driver.”
Note that MW doesn’t list “frontseat” anywhere, so presumably it considers it two words. So what if you’ve got “front seat” and “back seat” in the same story, the same paragraph, even the same sentence? Do you follow the dictionary into an inconsistency that makes no sense? Not me. In my own writing, it’s “The dog sat in the back seat” and “He’s a terrible backseat [or back-seat] driver.” (My dog sits in the front seat, by the way. It’s all I can do to keep him out of the driver’s seat.)
When you’ve sorted out “backseat” and “front seat,” you can move on to “backyard” and “front yard.” What’s sauce for the seat is sauce for the yard — or maybe not.
The Chicago Manual of Style has a handy-dandy several-page hyphenation chart. It’s extremely useful, it really is: you really don’t need to be deciding all this stuff from scratch. But if you use it a lot, as I do, pretty soon you’ll notice that it and your dictionary of choice don’t always agree. You’ll notice that different genres and different disciplines often have their own conventions, and these conventions are perfectly OK even if they don’t agree with Chicago or Merriam-Webster’s.
Here’s an example: Chicago often recommends hyphenating compound adjectives when they appear before a noun but leaving them open when they follow the verb. “A well-known proverb” but “The proverb is well known.” The catch here is that “well-known” appears in most English-language dictionaries. This makes it a word, and English words don’t generally change form according to their position in a sentence. So it depends on whether you think of “well-known” as a word or as a temporary compound — two or more words yoked together to serve a common purpose and that may be unyoked after that purpose is satisfied.
Here’s another one: Both Chicago and Merriam-Webster’s generally recommend dropping the hyphen after prefixes and before suffixes: multitask, flowerlike, and so on. (Yes, there are exceptions. No one recommends dropping the hyphen in “bell-like,” which would give you three l‘s in a row.) However, I’ve also noticed, both in my own writing and in what I edit, that the hyphen can call attention to the root word in a way that makes sense and may even aid understanding.
One of my current jobs refers several times to “pro-democracy activists.” Consider “prodemocracy” and “pro-democracy,” or “antichoice” and “anti-choice.” To me, whether I’m reading or writing, the hyphenated version gives a little more weight to the root. This can be especially useful when the prefix is something like pro- or anti-, non-, or counter- and the compound is a temporary one, not an established word like “antifreeze.” Consciously or not, plenty of good writers seem to feel likewise. When I’m editing, I’m loath to delete hyphens where they’re consistently used and serve a purpose, even when Chicago and Merriam-Webster’s recommend against them.
American Heritage is more hyphen-friendly than Merriam-Webster’s, and British English is more hyphen-friendly than its American cousin. This is why I usually have American Heritage, MW, and Oxford open in my browser when I’m working. I’ve set my Oxford default to “British and World English,” which seems to be why I keep getting billed in pounds. No, I don’t live in the UK, but I do like the reality check when it comes to hyphens.
The short version: Hyphens are responsible for [insert large number of your choice] percent of our trips to the dictionary because we think there’s a right and a wrong way to do it and the dictionary has the answer. When it comes to hyphens, there may be more than one right answer, and different dictionaries may give different advice. Learn the guidelines, pay attention to what hyphens can do, and don’t get too hung up on it.
So I’m closing in on 1,000 words and have said almost nothing about commas. The comm part of Sturgis’s Law #5 can be found here.
10 thoughts on “Sturgis’s Law #5”
I’d put it closer to 95%. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL. I suspect you’re right.
Couldn’t have chosen a cuter dog to illustrate your point. He’s one clever dog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I exploit this dog shamelessly. OTOH, he’s got his own Facebook account and gets birthday greetings from all over the world. He frequently complains about being underfed, but so far he hasn’t complained about being underpaid. Whew.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I feel so much better having read this. Whew! It wasn’t just me being totally confuzzled by those dictionaries. Being Canadian I assumed I was “mistakenly” using British usage.
Now I’m looking into my story, with a few too many unnecessary hyphens. Commas? Hmm. I have more trouble with ellipses, trying to show someone’s voice trailing off…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The dictionaries are confuzzling. (I love this word. I’m stealing it. 😉 ) I used to be OK with ellipses, at least in nonfiction, but these days I’m editing more academic work by authors who follow the common European of bracketing the ellipses that indicate omitted text in a quote (Chicago style doesn’t use the brackets) and I’m getting more and more confused. And don’t get me started on “four-dot ellipses”! You might be interested in my older post “On Dots and Dashes” at https://writethroughitblog.com/2014/09/14/of-dots-and-dashes/.
Freely given! Happy to throw another good word into the pot. Sometimes I am definitely confuzzled.
Yes, read the Dots/Dashes post and I refuse to use 4-dot ellipses. Let’s not get carried away here. Cheers.
Hyphens confound me all the time ! Loved what you wrote. Now I’m heading over to The ChicagoManual of Style 🙂
My head is spinning. LOL No wonder I get conflicting answers when I check out different sources.
Love the picture of your dog! 😀
The more you think about it, and the more sources you consult, the crazier it gets. Hyphens are generally a style thing, not really a spelling thing, and definitely not a grammar thing. As an editor, I work mostly on books. Books need to be internally consistent, but they generally don’t have to follow exactly the same hyphenation guidelines as other books in the same field or from the same publisher. I’d rather follow the author’s lead. I’m more likely to catch typos, grammar gaffes, and factual errors if I’m not diligently deleting all the hyphens from “decision-making” or “pro-choice.”