Help with hyphenated adjectives, plz
June 4, 2010 1:54 PM   Subscribe

Please help resolve an office grammar debate regarding hyphenated adjectives! (Sounds fun, right?)

We are developing a course for which we want the title of a slide to be "Getting Dog Specific."* The content of the slide will have directions for the instructor to talk about his/her specific dog (to the exclusion of other dogs, i.e.- just Lassie.)

Team A thinks that the title should be "Getting Dog-Specific," making "dog-specific" a compound adjective and sounding like it needs to be followed by a noun, as in, "getting dog-specific toys."

Team B (my team) thinks it should not be hyphenated, as in "Getting Dog Specific," making "dog specific" a noun and a verb, respectively.

We are trying to convey the idea "Getting Specific About Your Dog" without being so verbose. What we are "getting" is "specific", ultimately.


Any guidance?



*note, the actual noun used in the course is not "dog", but something I feel I probably can/should not say.
posted by Flamingo to Writing & Language (43 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Response by poster: ARG

Team B (my team) thinks it should not be hyphenated, as in "Getting Dog Specific," making "dog specific" a noun and an ADJECTIVE, respectively.
posted by Flamingo at 1:56 PM on June 4, 2010


Team A. Sorry. The compound adjective "dog-specific" means specific to dogs, or to a dog. It follows grammatical conventions. Dog modifies specific. Without the hyphen, it's not clear what modifies what.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:02 PM on June 4, 2010


Er, speaking of clarity, "dog" modifies "specific".
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:04 PM on June 4, 2010


Best answer: If I were editing your copy, I'd be putting that hyphen in. (I edit text for a living, and it involves a surprising amount of putting hyphens in things, and sometimes taking them out. In this case, there should be a hyphen, for exactly the reason that chesty gives.)
posted by rtha at 2:05 PM on June 4, 2010 [2 favorites]




I don't think shew read his/her own link, which says:

Rule 4. Generally, hyphenate between two or more adjectives when they come before a noun and act as a single idea.
Examples: friendly-looking man
(compound adjective in front of a noun)
friendly little girl
(not a compound adjective)
brightly lit room
(Brightly is an adverb describing lit, not an adjective.)


Emphasis is mine. "Dog-specific" is a single idea.

So, Team A.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


Rule 5, shew.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 2:09 PM on June 4, 2010


I should add, that for the purposes of that phrase, "dog" is a modifying adjective.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 2:09 PM on June 4, 2010


Drat... yes, I meant Team A. It should have the hyphen.
posted by shew at 2:10 PM on June 4, 2010


I don't disagree with rtha and chesty, but I think the hyphen looks dumb there (which is more a function of business jargon than hyphen use).

Can't you just say "Focusing on Dogs" or something similar? "Getting specific" might as well be "Getting funky" (could it be that, please?)--it's a bit loose for my slide deck style manual.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 2:12 PM on June 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't disagree with rtha and chesty, but I think the hyphen looks dumb there (which is more a function of business jargon than hyphen use).

I'd argue that to people who understand this proper use of the hyphen, it will simply look correct. Anyone who doesn't comprehend the grammatical (or puntuational) conventions probably won't notice anyway, since they've apparently never figured out this convention in the first place.

Team B's making the mistake of thinking that simply because a dog is a "thing," that makes it a noun. But it's an adjective, too - dog bowl, dog collar, dog leash. This poor understanding of the parts of speech can dog anyone. Wow! It just turned into a verb!
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 2:17 PM on June 4, 2010 [6 favorites]


Both rules 4 and 5 in shew's link refer to compounds that come before a noun. It sounds as though the OP is asking about compounds that stand alone, not modifying anything. My instinct is that in that case, Team B is correct. As in:

CORRECT: Getting Dog-Specific
INCORRECT: Getting Dog Specific
CORRECT: Getting Dog-Specific Advice
INCORRECT: Getting Dog Specific Advice
posted by decathecting at 2:37 PM on June 4, 2010


Gah, I screwed up my own examples. I was trying to say:

CORRECT: Getting Dog Specific
INCORRECT: Getting Dog-Specific
CORRECT: Getting Dog-Specific Advice
INCORRECT: Getting Dog Specific Advice
posted by decathecting at 2:38 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Examples: friendly-looking man

See, and I'd take the hyphen right out of that example, because "friendly" is an adverb. And what do adverbs do? They modify things (mostly, but not exclusively, verbs). IMO, most -ly words don't need a hyphen to follow because they're already modifying something. A hyphen, in most cases, would be redundant.

Another purpose of hyphens is to make unclear phrases clear. "Getting Dog Specific" is unclear - it leaves me thinking "Getting (a?) dog specific about *what*?"

What kind of specific are you getting? You are getting dog-specific. Dog is modifying specific, and so, the hyphen.
posted by rtha at 2:43 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Well, it's hard to say, because the title is a fragment. Figure out the rest of the sentence that the fragment came from and you'll have a better idea.

For what little it's worth, I agree with the Admiral-- it strikes me as an awkward title for a slide. It should be longer ("Getting specific for your dog") or shorter ("Dog-specific") or just different ("Dog-specific instructions"). Though the latter sounds like "Dog-specific, as opposed to relating to cats".
posted by supercres at 2:48 PM on June 4, 2010


A lot of the rules people are citing are off-point. Hyphens aren't so neatly logical. If the English language were perfect, we wouldn't need any hyphens, since our words would be clear on their own. But the reality is that it's often hard to tell how words are supposed to be connected, so we use hyphens to clarify things. Your example is very unusual because "dog specific" is a deliberately odd and comical phrase. That changes things. You don't just apply the normal rules. You try to give the reader as much guidance as possible. "Getting dog-specific" (A) is clearer than "Getting dog specific" (B). If I hadn't read this thread and saw (A), I'd immediately understand what it meant and how it was supposed to be read (emphasis on "dog"; no break between the words "dog" and "specific"). If I saw (B), I'd feel disoriented and would need to stop and puzzle out what it was supposed to mean or if it was a mistake. I really doubt you're going to find some rule in a usage book or website that unambiguously tells you what to do here. You have to go with practicality and intuition.
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:49 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Team A.

You want an adjective here. The adjective "dog-specific" describes the content of the slide. Even if you omitted the hyphen, you would still be using "dog specific" as an adjectival phrase. It's much easier to read with the hyphen; without it, there's a garden path effect.
posted by equalpants at 2:55 PM on June 4, 2010


I agree with (a) -- though I changed my mind, and I think in doing so might be able to better explain why others are going for (b) so adamantly (at least on here)

The example idea you gave us "Getting Specific About Your Dog" -- makes it seem noun-ier. (See what I did there.)

But though I could find all kinds of grammar rules to back up why I'm sure I'm right, t I really just agree with Jaltcoh -- (A) is clearer in trying to say what you're trying to say.

HOWEVER, I really think what is appropriate might change based on what noun you are really using.

I am, however, not much for rules when they might cause incorrect communication.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:58 PM on June 4, 2010


First, that's a terrible construction. Sorry. Just use "Getting Specific" as your title.

Second, as we are talking about a specific dog, it is a pronoun. Are we "getting Fido-specific"?

Third, "getting" in this case seems to mean talking, preaching, lecturing, rapping, etc, right? So would we really be "Talking Dog-Specific"?

I really think it does matter what the dog is. If it's a talk about cars, and at this point we move to specific makes, "Getting Brand-Specific" makes sense. But what about, say, books? Would we be "Getting Title-Specific" when we talk about an author's recent novel?
posted by gjc at 3:02 PM on June 4, 2010


Team A is correct for reasons Dee Xtrovert explained clearly. You'll get lots of speculation in this thread, but you'd be best served by ignoring it.
posted by smorange at 3:43 PM on June 4, 2010


Should you choose A, you'll then need to decide between an En Dash, and a hyphen.

I can't get enough of Em Dashes, En Dashes, or hyphens.
posted by StickyCarpet at 3:47 PM on June 4, 2010


Hyphenation rules in English are a bit fuzzy, and inconsistently applied. Noun-noun phrases, where the first noun is "used as an adjective" to modify the second are usually not hyphenated when the phrase is used alone, but hyphenated for clarity when the phrase is used to modify another noun, eg. "This box has a wood frame." but "wood-frame construction."

Noun-adjective combinations like "labor-intensive," "slap-happy," "oxygen-drunk." "industry-specific," however, are usually hyphenated even when they're used independently.

rtha's an editor. listen to her.

Somewhat off-topic: "Friendly" is an adjective, even though it ends in -ly. The construction is the same as "stern-looking," "harsh-sounding" and "foul-smelling." To make this a bit clearer compare "cheap-looking glass" (that you'd drink out of) to "cheap looking glass" (mirror).
posted by nangar at 4:02 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Team B (my team) thinks it should not be hyphenated, as in "Getting Dog Specific," making "dog specific" a noun and a verb, respectively.
Agreeing with Dee Xtrovert above. Note also, that there is no way "specific" can act as a verb in that sentence fragment.
Also agreeing that that is a horrible construction. I wish we knew what the actual noun you want to use is, because I think that makes a difference. Rewrite if possible so that this is not an issue any more.
posted by peacheater at 4:07 PM on June 4, 2010


(nagar's right that friendly is an adjective, but in the earlier construction, it's acting as an adverb - modifying "looking", and I wouldn't put a hyphen there.)
posted by rtha at 4:10 PM on June 4, 2010


Wait, wait. Isn't "dog specific" operating as a noun here, not an adjective?
posted by yarly at 4:12 PM on June 4, 2010


"Dog-specific" or "dog specific," as the OP wants to use it, is a compound adjective.

"Specific" is never a verb.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:45 PM on June 4, 2010


I edit for a living too, and "Dog-Specific" is correct. I agree that it's a graceless construction, though, and that "Getting Specific" is an improvement.

Should you choose A, you'll then need to decide between an En Dash, and a hyphen.

NO. No matter how insatiable your appetite, an en dash (no caps) is out of place here.
posted by ottereroticist at 5:09 PM on June 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


Basically “pro-American” gets a regular hyphen because “American” is only one word, whereas “pro–Falkland Islands” gets an en dash because “Falkland Islands” is two words. So, too phrases like “Civil War–era.”

NO.

Sheesh, asking not telling. But personally, I do I wish that I had a slider for dash width.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:13 PM on June 4, 2010


Both Dee Xtrovert and c_a_a are, I think, misinterpreting the page linked by shew. Note that Rules 4 and 5 only apply to those compound adjectives that precede nouns. "Getting Dog Specific/Dog-Specific" doesn't precede a noun on your slide, and could not precede a noun in any English sentence. (There do exist sentences containing "getting dog-specific [noun]," but in those contexts its meaning is totally different: "I'm getting dog-specific toys at the pet shop." "Getting dog-specific clothes for my dog to wear is fun.") So, if you accept grammarbook.com as your style authority, you should leave out the hyphen.

That said, this is an issue on which style guides differ. I think it looks clearer with the hyphen. If anyone complains, just read them Jaltcoh's comment until they shut up.
posted by decagon at 8:00 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


(Minor correction: Rule 4 on the grammarbook.com page does not explicitly say that one shouldn't hyphenate a double adjective appearing after a noun. But it implies as much, and many similar style guides state it outright.)
posted by decagon at 8:06 PM on June 4, 2010


See, and I'd take the hyphen right out of that example, because "friendly" is an adverb. And what do adverbs do? They modify things (mostly, but not exclusively, verbs). IMO, most -ly words don't need a hyphen to follow because they're already modifying something. A hyphen, in most cases, would be redundant.

and

Both Dee Xtrovert and c_a_a are, I think, misinterpreting the page linked by shew. Note that Rules 4 and 5 only apply to those compound adjectives that precede nouns. "Getting Dog Specific/Dog-Specific" doesn't precede a noun on your slide, and could not precede a noun in any English sentence. (There do exist sentences containing "getting dog-specific [noun]," but in those contexts its meaning is totally different: "I'm getting dog-specific toys at the pet shop." "Getting dog-specific clothes for my dog to wear is fun.") So, if you accept grammarbook.com as your style authority, you should leave out the hyphen.

Both wrong.

First of all, "friendly" in this case, isn't an adverb. Don't let the "-ly" fool you. It's an adjective. It's not hard to understand; "friendly" modifies nouns. "He's a friendly dog." Like many words, it can work both ways, but "friendly" generally works better as an adjective, which is why you often hear things like, "He smiled in a friendly way." Friendly, it seems, prefers to be an adjective. So, rule #4, as I quoted above, fully applies.

Remember that Evlis Costello album, "Get Happy!" A verb in the imperative, and an adjective. You don't need a noun there, it's implied. What Elvis meant was "Get in a happy frame of mind" or "Get in a happy mood." Subsitute "happy" with "dog-specific," and it'll more or less make sense (except it's less common to talk about being in a dog-specific frame of mind about something, unless it's a narrow subject, or - as the original poster said, "toys." In either case, "dog-specific" does precede a noun; it's just that the noun is implied. Language works like that a lot. When someone says, "Run! Fire!" what they really mean is "Run away from this area, for a fire has broken out and danger is imminent!" Quite a lot of "implied" there!
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:50 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


The content of the slide will have directions for the instructor to talk about his/her specific dog (to the exclusion of other dogs, i.e.- just Lassie.)

If your objective is to make your readers think that you have the correct hyphenation, I think this thread demonstrates that half your readers will think your hyphenation is wrong no matter which you choose.

Why not instead label the slide "case study"?
posted by Mike1024 at 3:10 AM on June 5, 2010


If the rules are inconsistent for a given grammatical construction, don't use that grammatical construct in a professional setting. Change the title of the slide.
posted by tzikeh at 4:06 AM on June 5, 2010


What kind of specific are you getting? You are getting dog-specific. Dog is modifying specific, and so, the hyphen.

This would be correct if they were moving from all animals to dogs, but they are talking about specific, individual dogs. As I interpret it, the slide would look like this:


Getting Dog Specific!

* Professor Flywheel talks about his weimaraner Muffy.

* Senator Stuffins talks about his full-size poodle, Kevin.

posted by gjc at 5:04 AM on June 5, 2010


OK. I checked some style guides: Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the Wikipedia article on compound modifiers. Writing.com, NCSU's Online Writing Lab. They all say I was right about "friendly-looking," but wrong about "dog specific."

The last two specifically address compounds like "color coded" and "labor intensive"- the exact same construction as "dog specific." They both say compounds like these should be hyphenated before nouns, but not hyphenated otherwise. (Wiki's style implies the same thing, but isn't as specific.)

NCSU has a nice quote about this:
The hyphen serves to eliminate ambiguity in the former construction ["labor-intensive activity"]. No ambiguity is possible in the second construction ["The activity will be labor intensive"], so the hyphen is useless and distracting--instead of thinking about all that work, you think about whether you're adding to the work by worrying about hyphens.

So, the committees are against me! Don't hyphenate it.
posted by nangar at 5:12 AM on June 5, 2010


Actually, writing.com says compounds like these "don’t need to be hyphenated" if they're not preceding a noun. If I understand them correctly, their take on this is that hyphens are optional in this case, and they prefer to leave them out when they're not necessary.

On reflection, even though I'm a bit hyphen-happy, I'm inclined to agree with gjc. If "getting dog specific" meant specific to dogs, not cats, I'd be inclined to want a hyphen, but not if it means specific to a particular dog. I can't really explain why.

(a correction to my earlier comment: Wiki's style manual implies ...)
posted by nangar at 6:00 AM on June 5, 2010


No ambiguity is possible in the second construction ["The activity will be labor intensive"], so the hyphen is useless and distracting

First of all, the hyphen isn't "useless and distracting" if you write "The activity will be labor-intensive." It's useful because it maintains consistency. By the same token, it's not distracting -- it's expected. While I understand the theory behind leaving out the hyphen when there's no noun after the compound adjective, many readers are not going to be attuned to such nuances and would simply view it as inconsistent if you write: "This activity is very labor intensive. When performing such a labor-intensive activity, make sure to..."

Also, you have to look at their reasoning, not just their rules. They say "no ambiguity is possible." Even if you agree that this is a good reason to leave out the hyphen in some instances of "labor intensive," do you really think it applies to "Getting dog specific"? As one of the above commenters pointed out, the phrase is ambiguous. It could mean "Getting dogs to be specific." That might not make much sense, but a writer should (when possible) spare the reader the burden of puzzling through different things you might have meant. (Anyway, I don't agree that avoiding ambiguity is the only function of hyphens, which is another problem with the rules you cite.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:01 AM on June 5, 2010


Jaltcoh, personally, I agree with you. I'd use a hyphen in "The activity will be labor-intensive." But this is area where there's disagreement and usage varies. After poking around a bit, seeing what other people had to say, and looking at gjc's example of how the phrase was likely to be used, I changed my mind about advising the OP to hyphenate in this case. A lot of manuals lean the other way, and I think in this case it really does look better without.

Here's Grammar Girl talking about the disagreement, and Volokh Conspiracy quoting Language Log.

tzikeh's suggestion doesn't work either. This would mean simply not using compound adjectives. It's a pretty common construction. We use language to communicate, and ultimately, in ambiguous cases, we have to use the punctuation that seems clearer or looks better, even though somebody else might leave a hyphen or comma in or out where we do the reverse.

I liked the quote from NCSU's Online Writing Lab: think about whether you're adding to the work by worrying about hyphens. I think this applies whether you leave the hyphen in or out.
posted by nangar at 7:12 AM on June 5, 2010


I just happened to read this in today's New York Times: "Because the process is not as labor-intensive as a traditional rental, JumpPost charges renters a third of the traditional broker rate — 5 percent of a year’s rent, instead of 15 percent." There's no noun after "labor-intensive," but it's easier to read than if there were no hyphen. I doubt many publications would write this any differently.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:28 AM on June 5, 2010


I tried searching Google Books for the phrase "is highly industry specific." It comes up both ways. I guess the OP could take a look and decide whose editorial policies they like better. or, like I said, just decide what they think looks better.

Flamingo's teams disagree, we disagree, real editors at real publishing companies disagree. We've gone on long enough. They're going to have to make up their on minds about this.
posted by nangar at 8:14 AM on June 5, 2010


Best answer: Professional editor here. The hyphen is needed. Do not listen to people who are trawling Wikipedia to find advice or using their personal sense of the language to judge a matter of formal printed style.
posted by languagehat at 8:43 AM on June 5, 2010


Response by poster: Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I'm going to follow what the pro copy editors are saying, even though they are not on my side. (mumble mumble appeal to authority...)
posted by Flamingo at 7:17 PM on June 5, 2010


In case anyone reads this in the future, please completely ignore what I wrote upthread. In my defense, I wasn't recommending the clearly inferior Option B, only arguing that it made sense within the framework provided by shew's linked style guide. (Which it really didn't—I was just failing to expand "getting dog-specific" to "getting into a dog-specific frame of reference.") Anyway, I retract my previous comments and defer to Dee and languagehat.
posted by decagon at 9:20 PM on June 7, 2010


« Older If you kids don't behave, I'm turning this plane...   |   Ball goes bouncy bouncy bouncy Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.