A reader has complained that writers ”are now sprinkling hyphens like pepper over salad, but unlike the pepper, they are deadening instead of stimulating.”
The examples he cited were compound adjectives before nouns: after-school programs, low-income parents and second-generation guidance system. He apparently believes, with Sir Winston Churchill, that ”one must regard the hyphen as a blemish to be avoided, wherever possible.”
According to Wilson Follett`s ”Modern American Usage,” however, ”the first and by far the greatest help to reading is the compulsory hyphenating that makes a single adjective out of two words before a noun: eighteenth-century painting / fleet-footed Achilles / tumbled-down shack / Morse-code noises / single-stick expert.”
Strunk and White`s ”The Elements of Style” pretty much agrees: ”When two or more words are combined to form a compound adjective, a hyphen is usually required. `He belonged to the leisure class and enjoyed leisure-class pursuits.”`
The advice to be found in Fowler`s ”Modern English Usage” flows from acceptance of Churchill`s dictum but with the caution that no one should approach hyphenation dogmatically.
Hyphenated compounds prevent ambiguity by signaling the reader that the hyphenated words function as a unit, not separately. An unhyphenated
”Christmas tree like shrub” is one over which most readers will stumble.
But the question arises: What is likely to be ambiguous and to whom? Few readers would think ”low income parent” had more to do with altitude than money, and fewer still could define ”income parent.” But most editors opt for the hyphen.
A former colleague, with even less confidence in his readers, insisted on ”high-school teacher,” lest we imply that teacher is high on drugs. He insisted even on ”real-estate broker,” lest we think the broker, or his properties, to be nonexistent.
My colleague was a fine fellow indeed, but a severe-hyphenitis-afflicted editor.
