You don't drive the reward. It becomes an adjective, so is reward-driven.

It's the same as your results-focused from yesterday:
related discussion: results focussed or results-focussed?

Betreff: "with a hyphen".

have a look here: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/hyphen

Die Bindestriche auf Englisch können recht kompliziert sein. Kein Wunder, dass die Frage in diesem Forum sooft gestellt wird!

Als Faustregel:

It is reward driven (alleinstehend, im Prädikat, nach dem Verb), aber Reward-driven results (als zusammengesetztes Adjektiv vorm Substantiv).

(Weiteres darüber im Link in #4.)

The Chicago Manual says that combinations such as adjective + noun, adjective + participle, noun + adjective, noun + participle are usually open after a noun, but I'm skeptical about several of those cases.

In that last category, it gives examples such as

a Wagner-burdened repertoire
flower-filled garden
a clothes-buying grandmother
a day of clothes buying

For one thing, that shorthand approach confuses gerunds with participles -- 'clothes buying' is actually a gerund after 'of,' right?

And it seems telling that they don't actually write anything like

? The repertoire was Wagner burdened
? The garden was flower filled

or indeed,

? The sales strategy was reward driven.

Those all look really bad to me -- clear cases where the lack of a hyphen makes the sentence confusing and awkward to read. Wagner is not burdened, flower is not filled, and (as Me said in #1) reward is not driven.

So I say the hyphen is necessary or at least strongly recommended, Chicago here or there. It doesn't cost anything extra to make it easier for the reader.

And I now wonder if perhaps Oxford or some other usage guide (maybe even Chicago in an earlier edition?) has a more nuanced and sensible approach than Chicago 16th ed.

Maybe it's time to mention John Benbow's famous phrase, “If you take hyphens seriously, you will surely go mad.” again. :-)

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=if+you+take+hyphe...

Has Chicago abandoned its famous table (6.1 in my edition) which provides a detailed but handy oversight of hyphenation rules?

Some categories are notoriously inconsistent, e.g. noun + gerund: "Some of these compounds are open, some are closed. Consult a dictionary. If not listed the compound should be open."

Chicago's "default line" used to be to keep compounds open unless ambiguity arises. That plays a role in
The garden is flower filled 
- the hyphen is omitted because there is only one sensible reading of this sentence (flower cannot function as a predicative adjective), vs.
Her behaviour was thought-provoking
where a hyphen is essential because thought can also be a verb form.

Yes, the 16th edition devotes an entire section to compounds and hyphenation. The hyphenation table alone is ten pages long.

Unfortunately, it is one of the peculiarities of English that one has to take hyphenation seriously, maddening though it may be. And you really do need to have a reliable reference work at your elbow for edited writing. No way around it.

Ich bin etwas erstaunt über die "Faustregel" in #5 ("alleinstehend, im Prädikat, nach dem Verb") von Bob und mehr noch über den Rückverweis auf den Link in #4. Ich teile auch die Bedenken in #5 (Chicago hin oder her ...).

#4 (Oxford Dictionaries) deckt die "Faustregel" nicht. Dort heißt es (Hervorhebung in fett sW): With compound adjectives formed from the adverb well and a participle (e.g. well-known), or from a phrase (e.g. up-to-date), you should use a hyphen when the compound comes before the noun [...] but not when the compound comes after the noun: His music was also well known in England/Their figures are up to date.

Die Ausnahme wird also nur für "well" oder eine zusammengesetzte Redewendung gemacht.

Oxford (in meiner zugegeben alten Version von Hart's Rules) sagt zunächst über Adverb + Adjektiv (incl. Partizip), dass gewöhnlich kein Bindestrich nötig ist ("a beautifully furnished house"), aber dann nötig ist, wenn das Adverb nicht sofort als solches erkannt werden kann: "best-known; ill-educated, good-sized" etc. Es wird keine Aussage darüber gemacht, ob das Adjektiv/Partizip in attributiver Stellung (vor einem Substantiv) oder in prädikativer Stellung (nach einem Kopulaverb) steht. Alle genannten Beispiele enthalten Partizipien.

Dann wird die Ausnahme genannt: Where an adverb qualifies a predicate, the hyphen SHOULD NOT be used, e.g. this fact is well known.

Wohlgemerkt: is known ist hier das Prädikat, und die Trennlinie zwischen dem Partizip als Verbform und der prädikativen Verwendung eines Partizips als Eigenschaftszuschreibung ist nicht klar gezogen. Und es geht hier nur um die Kombination Adverb+Partizip, die hier nicht als compound adjective interpretiert ist.

Allerdings: Where (1) a noun and an adjective or a participle, or (2) an adjective and a noun, in combination, are used as a compound adjective, a hyphen SHOULD be used ... 

Wieder geht es nicht um die Stellung. Ein „compound adjective“ bleibt ein Adjektiv, auch wenn es in prädikativer Stellung steht. Das Partizip verwandelt sich dadurch nicht in ein Verb, sondern bleibt Teil des Adjektivs. Aus der Nichterwähnung der Stellung folgt:

I grew up in a poverty-stricken family. / For many years, our family was poverty-stricken. Demzufolge müsste es heißen: All his activities were reward-driven.

Die Vermeidung von Missverständnissen ist nicht eigens angesprochen. Es ist klar, dass die Sätze This product is the best known und This product is the best-known eine völlig unterschiedliche zugrundeliegende Grammatik haben. Das wird von Chicago berücksichtigt (das genannte Beispiel thought provoking/thought-provoking).

Der entscheidende Grund, zusammengesetzte Adjektive mit einem Substantiv als Bestandteil mit Bindestrich zu schreiben, auch prädikativ, liegt für mich darin, dass die Funktion sofort erkennbar ist. Bei Getrenntschreibung entsteht ein Stolperstein, und man muss nachträglich interpretieren.

Der Oxford Guide to the English Language und das MHRA Style Sheet machen keine Aussage zu diesem speziellen Fall.

Der "Oxford Guide to the English Language"

“Guide”; aren’t all the above-mentioned rules “guides” in the last analysis? One will always find exceptions if one is mind to do so. Ambiguous or not ambiguous, that is the question. If there is even a faint chance of ambiguity in a compound adjective, combinations of noun and an adjective or a participle, an adjective and a noun etc., using a hyphen will not be wrong I’d say. But maybe I’m over-simplifying. :-)

(Probably just a typo, but for learners reading along: —> if one is minded to do so / if one has a mind to do so.)

I don't think you're oversimplifying, mikefm; 'if there is even a faint chance' is how I would have put it as well.

And thanks, sebastian, for the input from Oxford, which does indeed seem more sensible in focusing on clarity vs. ambiguity.

I admit I was surprised that Chicago had gone to the trouble of laying out so many categories on so many pages, and then really not done a very good job in spotting which cases might be more problematic than they appear. Maybe the 14th ed. was better, or maybe this is just one of those areas where Chicago should be taken with a grain of salt. It's true that it's only a guide -- we still have to use our own judgment.

It should be pointed out here that the Chicago Manual of Style, published by the University of Chicago Press, is probably the most widely respected guide to writing style in the US. It is used widely by major publishing houses and academic institutions in preparing books and other works for publication. It covers not only hyphenation but also preparing manuscripts, rights and permissions, points of grammar and usage, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, numbers, abbreviations, quotations and dialogue, documentation and bibliography, and how to produce indexes. It even has a section on online publishing. Nearly a thousand book pages in length and the product of years of experience and ongoing research, it is the main handbook for writers, proofreaders, and editors today.

The editors of the Chicago Manual closely follow trends in writing, editing, and publishing, they have input from experts in all the fields they deal with, and they update the Manual about every five years to reflect the latest style.

Many things surprise the poorly informed, but users of this forum have a choice: the opinions of hm-us or the recommendations of the Chicago Manual. Choose wisely.

Reward-driven is not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but results-driven is. Since the latter is hyphenated, no doubt the former should be as well.

if one is minded to do so / if one has a mind to do so.)

Thanks; and also thanks for agreeing about "over-simplifying." :-)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm more inclined to pay attention to #14 than #13. Thanks for the added support. (-:

Sebastian, the Chicago Manual says, "the first place to look for answers is the dictionary." If I'd checked reward-driven, I might have saved part of the above discussion.

But the dictionary cannot account for all hyphenation, so Chicago points out, first, that hyphenation evolves: "With frequent use, open or hyphenated compounds tend to become closed (on line to on-line to online)."

It continues, "When compound modifiers such as open-mouthed or full-length precede a noun, hyphenation usually lends clarity" (with some exceptions). "When such compounds follow the noun they modify, hyphenation is usually unnecessary."

That is the rule of thumb I meant to give. Sorry I didn't get it quite right.

Not all compounds follow this rule, but a wide variety do. Compounds involving adjective + noun, adjective + participle, adverb (not ending in ly) + participle, noun + adjective, noun + participle, and a few others should generally be hyphenated before a noun but not after it.

(Compounds made up of an adverb ending in ly + a participle are not hyphenated before or after a noun.)

Und das ist nur ein Teil der Einleitung!

Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass Chicago und Oxford verschiedene Empfehlungen machen, die die variierende Gebräuche der respektiven Länder entsprechen. Es empfiehlt sich daher, sich mit den Regeln des jeweiligen Landes vertraut zu machen.

I seriously wonder if Chicago has slipped up here when writing
"When such compounds follow the noun they modify, hyphenation is usually unnecessary . . ."
It seems quite likely to me that they were thinking mainly of compounds like "well-read".

It is quite normal in English for an adjective or participle to be preceded by an adverb of manner or degree, so thinking of the collocation as a compound does not significantly change the rules of English syntax. However, it is "unusual" for a noun to be followed by a bare past participle with the noun modifying the participle like an adverb (as would be implied by "reward driven"). This collocation is usually used where a (longer) participial phrase modifies the noun (not the other way round) in a similar way to a relative clause.

? The carriage was horse drawn.
? The management was reward driven.
? The values were null delimited.
? This looks very moth eaten.
? The disease is sex linked
? The project is taxpayer funded.

No Mike, Chicago doesn't "slip up" and has not done so here. The editors were thinking of nothing other than the examples they provide. Anyway, where is the ambiguity in them? Or in those you cite, for that matter?

Why do you call it "unusual" for a noun to modify a past participle then reel off a string of examples, to which dozens more can be added? And how in the world can a noun be "like an adverb," whether modifying a participle or anything else?

The hyphenation guidelines Chicago lays out reflect the prevailing practices in edited, published writing today.

prevailing practices in edited, published writing today.

and one of today's deplorable practices is leaving out hyphens in compound adjectives e.g.

Look, when composing your own great novel, hyphenate and do everything else as you please. When translating or editing someone else's work, you will be well advised adhere to the house style. That way, if you run into superiors who don't like hyphens and commas any more than you do, you can hold their noses to the style guide. Let them argue with that, but it gets them out of your face.

Far from being sleep inducing, such discussions can be eye opening. I must say, however, that Chicagos's generalizations (if quoted correctly) seem drug influenced to me, at least they leave me wide eyed and open mouthed. Put into practice, the results can be mind boggling.

I may be grammar obsessed, but all of the above doesn't look right to me.

Bob, you say: Anyway, where is the ambiguity in them? The ambiguity is in the grammar, it's not a semantical ambiguity. A coat that is moth eaten is not a moth being eaten, but when you encounter a noun in a sentence you rather expect it to be modified by a modifier, be it an adjective or a relative clause, not to modify something else. I think that was what MikeE was aiming at. When I said, further above, that the grammar in that product is the best known versus that product is the best-known is completely different I was trying to point out something similar: Of all detergents [available = that are available], X is the best [product that is] known [to us = that we know of] / of all those detergents, X is the best-known [detergent = the one most people are familiar with]. You are certainly right in saying that in moth-eaten, horse-drawn etc., there is no such ambiguity, but it seems rash to me to conclude that you can leave out the hyphen. What remains is the fact that, when you read such a sentence, you will have to 'recalculate' the syntactical role of the noun as you go along. In predicative position, the noun is not modified, it is a modifier. It makes you stumble.

And how in the world can a noun be "like an adverb," whether modifying a participle or anything else?

Easy. A chauffeur-driven car is a car driven by a chauffeur, a moth-eaten coat is eaten, but not by you and me for dinner, but by moths. The noun says how the participle must be understood, and as such, it's a modifier. In addition, the participle eaten on its own wouldn't make sense, moth-eaten is a true compound adjective and remains an adjective both in its attributive and predicative positions.


The editors were thinking of nothing other than the examples they provide.

Really? Then what does 'such as', 'usually', 'in general' mean?

Take the sentence you quoted above: When compound modifiers such as open-mouthed or full-length precede a noun, hyphenation usually lends clarity. ... When such compounds follow the noun they modify, hyphenation is usually unnecessary.

Open-mouthed and full-length are not even in the same class, so it's hard to imagine what such as means in this case.

You go on to say (in your own words, I believe), Compounds involving adjective + noun, ... noun + adjective, noun + participle, and a few others should generally be hyphenated before a noun but not after it.

I don't have Chicago and can't look it up, but do they really cover the case noun + participle in a predicative position? Or is that your conclusion?

Everytime (in #8) quoted the following problematic advice: Consult a dictionary. If not listed the compound should be open.

As you said above, you found results-driven in MW, but not reward-driven. You say: Since the latter is hyphenated, no doubt the former should be as well. If you follow Chicago's advice, it should be open.

Dictionaries list words. They specify parts of speech, but they usually don't specify syntactic functions. Can you tell if the editors had the attributive adjective in mind or the predicative use of the same adjective? If you follow Chicago, they would have to list both, as the syntactic function affects spelling.

Unless, of course, the adjective reward-driven ceases to be an adjective when you drop the hyphen. But then, what does it become? Which brings us full-circle to the initial grammatical problem. Either it's a compound adjective or it's a mere succession of words.


Sorry for rambling on for so long.

Re #21: Why would anyone leave out useful hyphens just to be nasty to a boss? And why would anyone go on and on about a style guide without actually analyzing the grammar involved?

MikeE's point that omitting the hyphen works better with adverbs seems right on the money, and also tallies with the way Oxford presents the topic.

*f5* Sorry, hadn't yet seen #22.

Sebastian, I'm not going to quote Chicago any further. Clearly, excerpts are not going to convince you. It would be a good thing if you could find a way to gain access to it, hardbound or online. It's a wonderful resource.

After reviewing Chicago, I would now say reward driven after a noun or in predicate should probably not be hyphenated.

Bob, I respect your opinion and value your expertise. I was simply trying to point out a few inconsistencies in what you said and trying to explain why that specific construction jars. It was my impression that I was not the only one here. But then I'm not a native speaker of English, as you know, so being sent to the library may be well-deserved after all. (-:

Chicago is indeed useful, above all for conventions -- things like footnote and bibliography style, style of quoting things from foreign languages, Arabic & Roman numerals, superscripts, where to put quotation marks, hyphen/en dash/em dash ... Anyone who works with academic texts might indeed find it helpful for some of those topics.

If I recall correctly, the basic grammar sections are a relatively recent addition in the last decade or two, and are evidently meant to fill in gaps in preparation (Wissenslücken) among readers, to cover basic topics that people were formerly expected to have learned before they ever got to the stage of writing advanced academic papers. They're not meant to be an exhaustive grammar reference as much as just an overview of common problem areas.

Hyphenation and compound words are one of the most fluid areas of English usage -- there are often two or more variants concurrently in use that can both be justified. Sometimes you can find a general principle that applies, but sometimes you also need to use your own judgment. sebastian analyzes grammar at a high level in both languages, so his judgment is surely as adequate to the task as anyone else's here.

Sebastian, I do not mean to patronize you. I mean only to express regret that the Chicago Manual is so expensive that it is inaccessible to so many. I would not have the benefit of it except that once I had access to it online free of charge, and after that a friend was kind enough to give me the 16th edition, hardbound.

Your English is excellent, but even if it were not, you and all others have as much right as any native speaker to express opinions and join in discussions about its grammar, usage, and style.

Yes, it's an interesting discussion, but I have the impression that continuing it will not convince either of us.

Nevertheless, I will comment on one point. Moth-eaten has become so common that it is registered in the dictionary as a hyphenated compound (in time, no doubt, it will become solid). However, chauffeur driven does not enjoy that status, so after a noun or in a predicate (the car is chauffeur driven) it can safely be left open. (Incidentally, Chicago does not forbid hyphenation; it merely makes the point that it is unnecessary and that the preference of most American writers and editors is to leave it open.)

The car is driven by a chauffeur is a sentence in passive voice, as you know. By a chauffeur is a prepositional phrase and is described variously by grammarians, but, as far as I have been able to determine, never as having an adverbial function. Perhaps you can find a reference that will enlighten me.

I just read these two sentences in the newest issue of Commercial Building Products (Jan/Feb 2014), p.5:

"As part of [our] new look we also changed the editorial structure. Our lead story is now staff written by our senior editor . . .." (Emphasis added, of course.)

My instincts (and preference) would have it be "staff-written."

@ sebastianW (#22) "I don't have Chicago and can't look it up, but do they really cover the case noun + participle in a predicative position? "
Definitely worth having access to!

CMS 16th. ed. actually has a table of rules for "compounds according to parts of speech" (7.85).
The relevant part is on page 378.

There are three columns

column 1, headed "Category/specific term" : noun + participle

column 2, headed "Examples":
- a Wagner-burdened repertoire
- flower-filled garden
- a clothes-buying grandmother
- a day of clothes buying

column 3, headed "Summary of rule": "Hyphenated before a noun, otherwise open."

----------

Anyway, I wrote to Chicago, asking if they had perhaps overlooked "predicative compounds consisting of a noun followed by a past participle" and remarking that I couldn't think of any that looked right without a hyphen, listing some examples.

I just received a very nice reply from Chicago staff, stating that they agreed with me and would pass it on to the writers responsible for the next edition.
They added that they always allow a hyphen to prevent misreading; I think that could also be better expressed in the book.
Anyway, kudos to the reader feedback staff.

I didn't mention present participles and have only now taken a closer look at their example "a day of clothes buying". Buying is not what I would call a participle in this context, so it really belongs in their section "noun + gerund", where we find "decision making" and "mountain climbing" (bonus dormitavit . . .).
------
@Bob C. (#27)
" Perhaps you can find a reference that will enlighten me."

Try A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al., 1985), Chapter 8 "The semantics and grammar of adverbials", particularly
section 8.5 on process adverbials:
"Here it is possible to distinguish four subclasses: MANNER . . .; MEANS . . .; INSTRUMENT . . .; AGENTIVE (by John, with passive; corresponding to John as subject, with active). . . . "
Examples of agentive adverbials given are
"The student was . . . assessed by the teacher."
"The patient was . . . treated by the nurse."

Such structures may, of course, be analysed using different concepts, but that is one of the more traditional analyses.

CMS 16th. ed. actually has a table of rules for "compounds according to parts of speech" (7.85).
The relevant part is on page 378.
There are three columns
column 1, headed "Category/specific term" : noun + participle
column 2, headed "Examples":
- a Wagner-burdened repertoire
- flower-filled garden
- a clothes-buying grandmother
- a day of clothes buying
column 3, headed "Summary of rule": "Hyphenated before a noun, otherwise open."


Interesting. It looks as it they have trimmed back their advice in more recent additions. In the 14th, the category of noun plus participle is also listed under the "Adjective forms", with a different and longer set of examples.

The "Remarks" column includes this summary, which I am inclined to agree with for the reasons I gave in #8:

"Adjectival compounds consisiting of a noun plus a participle are usually hyphenated before the noun to prevent ambiguity. When used as a predicative adjective, however, they may be left open unless the hyphen is required to prevent misreading."

Mike, thanks for the reference in #29. I'm trying to download it, and if successful will have a look and get back to this.

Wow, MikeE, thank you very much for writing to Chicago and for letting us know what they said. You get the language maven prize of the month, I think, for having gotten an answer at all, much less so quickly.

And thanks for agreeing with me, including about that gerund. I was beginning to wonder if the few of us who commented here were the only ones not seeing the emperor's new hyphen. (-:

hm,

Thank you for the virtual prize!

I must have registered your remark about the gerund at the time, but it had slipped my mind by the time I wrote to Chicago; otherwise I would probably have mentioned that point to them as well.

I thought I read somewhere (but I can't find it now) that Chicago revised and re-instated the table of compounds, so I guess that they replaced it with running text in the 15th edition (which I don't have).

The entry on "noun + gerund" seems to be new in the 16th ed. (compared with the 14th ed., where "decision-making is also under "noun + participle"), so I think they may have overlooked "clothes buying" when they split that entry.

I see now that the 14th ed. actually had the examples
"The match was weather delayed."
"The paper was machine made."
"The loan was interest bearing."
which they seem to have removed in the 16th ed.

The 15th edition does not have a table of hyphenation; it has a list, which is shorter (seven or eight pages). The 16th edition says that the table is "a return to the tabular form of earlier editions of this manual" and adds, "consult the preceding paragraphs in this section (7.77-84)--especially if a relevant example cannot be found." (Clothes-buying is found on page 378 of the table in the 16th.)

Some readers of this thread may also find the following note helpful: "In general, Chicago prefers a spare hyphenation style: if no suitable example or analogy can be found either in this section or in the dictionary, hyphenate only if doing so will aid readability."

Interesting; thank you both.

So the 14th ed. (which I too have, but not here) wasn't in fact an improvement on this point. 'Spare hyphenation style' is certainly the word for it, then. But they do give themselves an out with 'aid readability.' (-:

Maybe they really will rethink this area for the next edition. It's certainly not always easy to formulate broad rules, but it seems to me that participles do often fall into the category in which a hyphen aids readability.