A quick question about hyphenation

[alaskamatt17]

This may seem petty, but I've been wondering about the proper hyphenation of ages. Would you hyphenate the following as: "one hundred-years-old" or "one-hundred-years-old?"

Thanks in advance to anyone who can clarify this for me.

[Alphabeter]

Being the child of a forme English teacher of 28 years, I was drilled the proper way was:

one-hundred-years-old

ten-months-old

But you might want to Ask the Editor (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59). Different people will accept different things. :Shrug:

[Maryn]

It's more about the use of the age within the structure of the sentence, not merely the numbers.

Combined years used as an adjective (as a compound adjective) are hyphenated if they come before the noun or are needed for clarity.

Compound adjectives before the noun:
I love twelve-year-old scotch. I admire the one-hundred-year-old house.

Compound adjectives after the noun:
The scotch is twelve years old. The house is one hundred years old.

Like Joy said, publishers may have their own in-house standards and may edit your manuscript to match. I hated how the non-tabloid newspaper in Boston didn't capitalize the S in Street or St. in proper street names. Beacon st. and Commonwealth ave. just look wrong.

Maryn, ever so picky

[zizban]

My answer: When in doubt, consult the Chicago Manual of Style.

[reph]

Picky Maryn gave the right answer. To decide on hyphenation, you have to look at what job the words do in their sentence.

[three seven]

One hundred years old.

A hundred-year-old tree.


EDIT: Ok, Maryn said that already. I should slow down. Breeeaaaathe.

[Jamesaritchie]

This may seem petty, but I've been wondering about the proper hyphenation of ages. Would you hyphenate the following as: "one hundred-years-old" or "one-hundred-years-old?"

Thanks in advance to anyone who can clarify this for me.

Usage means much, but the rule is to only hyphenate compound numbers from twenty-one through ninety-nine, so "one hundred" doesn't take a hyphen. If you can't quite understand placement, then if word "year" is singular, it nearly always requires a hyphen, but if "year" is plural, there's no hyphen. In other words, "year-old" is a compound, but "years old" isn't. "Month-old" is a compound, but "months old" isn't.

For a compound, drop the "s." It's two-month-old," not "two-months-old," and it's either "two-year-old," or "two years old."

It should be "I am one hundred years old." Or, "He is one hundred years old."

Or, "I am one hundred and twenty-nine years old. At least, I feel like I am."

But it would be the "one hundred-year-old man."

Usage is everything, but remembering the singular or plural form usually makes usage easy.

And in one hundred, it's grammatically fine to omit the "one," if you like. "The hundred-year-old man." I don't much like it, but it is allowed. But it would be "The two hundred-year-old man." And it would still be, "That man is two hundred years old."

It also differes in formal and informal writing, can differ in narrative and dialogue, and in nonfiction and fiction. In most article writing, it would be "The 100-year-old man." But in dialogue, it would be "The one hundred-year-old man."

Hyphens drive me batty. I doubt any part of usage changes nearly as fast. When I was young, back in the days of the dinosaur, there was only one English word wherein you could add "non" without using a hyphen. That word was "sense." You added "non" with no hyphen to get "nonsense." "Nonfiction" was correctly written as "non-fiction," etc.

Sentence structure and clarity really are the keys, and the clarity rule makes for some exceptions, but odds are good that by the time you understand a hyphen rule, it won't be a rule anymore.

[alaskamatt17]

Thanks for all the advice.

[reph]

But it would be the "one hundred-year-old man."
That's inconsistent with my understanding of how to hyphenate compounds. A hyphen is needed after "one," too.

If you're using numerals after ninety-nine (a common cutoff), you'll write "the 100-year-old man." In that phrase, "100-year-old" forms a unit; the whole thing modifies "man." When you switch to words for the number that represents the man's age, to omit a hyphen after "one" breaks up that unit into two parts, "one" and "hundred-year-old."

Looking at it with clarity in mind, try these sentences:

"The one-hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday credited a daily dose of beer and pretzels for his longevity."

"The one hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday..."

[Jamesaritchie]

That's inconsistent with my understanding of how to hyphenate compounds. A hyphen is needed after "one," too.

If you're using numerals after ninety-nine (a common cutoff), you'll write "the 100-year-old man." In that phrase, "100-year-old" forms a unit; the whole thing modifies "man." When you switch to words for the number that represents the man's age, to omit a hyphen after "one" breaks up that unit into two parts, "one" and "hundred-year-old."

Looking at it with clarity in mind, try these sentences:

"The one-hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday credited a daily dose of beer and pretzels for his longevity."

"The one hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday..."

The second sentence makes more sense to me.

I know people who would write one-hundred-year-old, but nothing would make my English professors fume more than this. Their opinion, and I agree, is that it isn't about a unit, but about what is and isn't a compound word. and that the rule "only compound numbers from twenty-one to ninety-nine should ever take a hyphen" is the one to follow. So "one hundred" is never a compound word. The twenty-one to ninety-nine rule is still in my current grammar books, so I follow it.

But I was in college more than twenty-five years ago, so it might well have changed by now, and might even have been a bias of my particular English professors. I still use it because of the twenty-one to ninety-nine rule, and editors never change it, but I suspect they wouldn't change it if I put the hyphen in, either.

I don't think any editor will shoot you, whichever version you use, and this is probably one of those "in-house rule applies" usages. I know that, as an editor, I'd go with whatever my boss wanted on this.

The problem I find with new writers and hypehns is when they don't know what is and isn't a compound word or unit. The "s" rule is a cheat one of my professors taught me, and I remember there being a host of "cheats" to help remember usage. Most have slipped my mind over the years, but I wish someone would put together a list of cheats. I think such a list might help new writers more than most grammar books.

[Mistook]

I always love these "quick questions" about tiny little things like hyphens and comma's.

[reph]

The second sentence makes more sense to me.
First sentence: "The one-hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday credited a daily dose of beer and pretzels for his longevity."

Second sentence: "The one hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday..."

I used that example to show that the debated hyphen eliminates ambiguity. The second sentence can mean "The single 100-year-old man interviewed..."

[Mistook]

First sentence: "The one-hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday credited a daily dose of beer and pretzels for his longevity."

Second sentence: "The one hundred-year-old man interviewed at Buddy Mac's Convalescent Home yesterday..."

I used that example to show that the debated hyphen eliminates ambiguity. The second sentence can mean "The single 100-year-old man interviewed..."


How about:

"The two hundred-year-old men played chess every tuesday."

vs

The two-hundred-year-old men played chess every tuesday."

or...

The two hundred year-old men...

okay that last one is just ridiculous.

[reph]

Mistook, I considered that kind of example and rejected it on grounds of implausibility. But you could have

"Paula's two hundred-year-old coins fetched a good price at auction." (two coins, each 100 years old)

"Paula's two-hundred-year-old coins fetched a good price at auction." (unspecified number of 100-year-old coins)

[Mistook]

Mistook, I considered that kind of example and rejected it on grounds of implausibility. But you could have

"Paula's two hundred-year-old coins fetched a good price at auction." (two coins, each 100 years old)

"Paula's two-hundred-year-old coins fetched a good price at auction." (unspecified number of 100-year-old coins)


Unspecified number of 200-year-old coins, eh?



But wouldn't it always be best to use numerals rather than spell it out? Isn't there any rule that says, "if you find yourself stringing more than three words together with hyphens, it's time to re-think the sentence."

[reph]

But wouldn't it always be best to use numerals rather than spell it out? Isn't there any rule that says, "if you find yourself stringing more than three words together with hyphens, it's time to re-think the sentence."
If you're following the Chicago Manual, you use numerals for "100-year-old man," but you still use words for "ninety-nine-year-old man," a count-'em-four-words-strung-together word necklace.

I don't know of a written-down-in-a-widely-accepted-style-book rule about how many words you can join before rethinking should commence. It sounds like a good idea, though. In fact, it sounds like a here-I-go-slapping-my-forehead-because-I-didn't-think-of-it-first good idea.

[Mistook]

If you're following the Chicago Manual, you use numerals for "100-year-old man," but you still use words for "ninety-nine-year-old man," a count-'em-four-words-strung-together word necklace.

I don't know of a written-down-in-a-widely-accepted-style-book rule about how many words you can join before rethinking should commence. It sounds like a good idea, though. In fact, it sounds like a here-I-go-slapping-my-forehead-because-I-didn't-think-of-it-first good idea.


Well, If I've still got your ear, Doctor, I really have been having hyphen-pains lately. It seems to me that in a more innocent time (before I dared to write a manuscript) there were compound words (such as 'stronghold'), and there were 'sayings' understood to be compound (such as 'living room'). In neither case did a hyphen seem necessary.

Now, having learned of the awsome conjoining properties of the N-dash, I find myself hyphenating every-other blessed pair of words to facilitate my meaning. I find myself writing sentences that are nothing but a string of compounds, and I fear that I may, upon revision, just fill in the remaining open space with hyphens just to satisfy the madness.

Are authors allowed to create hyphenated-compounds at will, or is hyphen-mania a disease for which we must seek treatment?

[reph]

It's a disease. You must dash off to a grammar clinic.

[Mistook]

It's a disease. You must dash off to a grammar clinic.

:roll:


Maybe while I'm there, they can look at my colon problems.