Punctuation Problems: Hyphens and Compound Modifiers

One of the most common uses for the hyphen (-) is to connect compound modifiers. A compound modifier is a mix of two or more adjectives or adverbs that jointly modify the same word. So, for example:

     He is such a well-behaved boy.

The words well and behaved work in tandem to modify boy. Well clarifies the meaning of behaved, and together they carry a new descriptive meaning. They are acting together as though they were a single adjective. Here are some other examples:

     “You think she committed the murder? She’s a ninety-seven-year-old woman, for heaven’s sake!”

     “My hospital takes a very patient-centered approach to healthcare.”

     “The creature had a 50-foot wingspan!”

Note that in compound modifiers that involve numbers, a hyphen is required whether you spell out the number or use numerals (so the last example could also be fifty-foot; but a hyphen is needed either way).

Part of the reason for this rule is to avoid potentially confusing situations. For example:

     “We met an American football player in the pub last night.”

Did the speakers meet someone who plays American football, or did they meet a football player who is also American? A hyphen can add clarification:

     “We met an American-football player in the pub last night.”

The hyphen lets us know that those two descriptors belong together; thus, the answer is that the speakers met someone who plays American football.

"Man eating plant" vs. "Man-eating plant."

Remember that you only hyphenate words that are working together as a single adjective. So the following usage would be incorrect:

     “This might be the most well-thought-out-and-over-detailed plan I’ve ever seen.”

Well-thought-out and over-detailed are two separate descriptions, so the example should instead read:

     “This might be the most well-thought-out and over-detailed plan I’ve ever seen.”

Exceptions:

Sadly, it can’t just be that simple. There are a few exceptions to the hyphenating-compound-modifiers rule.

First exception: If the first word in the compound modifier is an adverb that ends in -ly, it is extremely unusual to hyphenate the two words together.

     He is such a poorly behaved boy.

     Part of the reason for this rule is to avoid potentially confusing situations.

Second exception: This rule only applies to compound modifiers that appear before the word they modify. If they appear after, they should not be hyphenated. Here’s what some of our earlier examples would look like if the compound modifiers had appeared after the word they modified:

     “That boy is so well behaved.”

     “You think she committed the murder? That woman is ninety seven years old, for heaven’s sake!”

     “My hospital’s approach to healthcare is very patient centered.”

     “The creature had a wingspan of 50 feet!”

Punctuation Problems: Clarifying Information vs. Additional Information

Can you tell me the difference in meaning between these two sentences?

     1. Olya entered the chapel and approached the altar where Dima knelt with his wife.

     2. Olya entered the chapel and approached the altar, where Dima knelt with his wife.

The only difference is the comma—what does that little comma do? It separates the sentence into two portions, which serves to inform the reader that the second portion of the sentence is adding some extra information. The comma, in essence, informs the reader that the second part of the sentence is not necessary to understand the first part.

Without the comma, the sentence implies that that last portion of the sentence (“where Dima knelt with his wife”) is clarifying the first part, that the sentence wouldn’t be complete without it. If that last portion of the sentence is necessary, then that implies that the “altar” that was mentioned needs to be distinguished from some other altar in the area.

In other words, here is what each of our example sentences above is really saying:

     1. Olya entered the chapel. There were several altars, and she approached the one where Dima knelt with his wife.

     2. Olya entered the chapel and approached the only altar. Dima knelt beside the altar with his wife.

See the difference? Without the comma, the implication is that the second portion of the sentence is necessary to clarify the first portion. With the comma, the implication is that the second portion of the sentence is extra information which isn’t needed to understand the first portion.

Imagine that you and a friend are headed to the movies, when you get a call that you need to stop and meet a secret agent to receive a package related to your next secret agent mission. (We’re all imagining that you have a very interesting life.) You tell your friend that you have to stop to meet this agent at the park.

Now, how you phrase this statement would depend on how many parks are in the area, right? If there were only one park in the whole town, then you might simply say:

     “We have to stop at the park.”

Since there’s only one park in the area, your friend would know what you mean. However, if there were several parks in the area, you would need to add additional information to clarify which park you meant:

     “We have to stop at the park where you met my sister.”

See how it works? The phrase “where you met my sister” serves as clarification—without that information, it would not be clear which park you meant. Since the information is necessary, it should not be separated from the noun it clarifies (park) by a comma. If you did so, the sentence would read strangely:

     “We have to stop at the park, where you met my sister.”

Placing a comma here implies that you are adding extra information, which in this case seems rather nonsensical. Why would you mention, apropos of nothing, that your friend met your sister in the park? Your friend would know that. With the comma, the sentence essentially means this:

     “We have to stop at the park. By the way, you met my sister at this park.”

That just reads like particularly awkward maid-and-butler dialog. Imagine your friend looking at you in confusion, and saying, “Yeah, I know that. Why are you telling me?”

Remember: clarifying information should usually not be separated from the word it clarifies by a comma.

     

"Looking With Eyes"—Avoiding Redundant Description

Here are some sample sentences from works I've edited:

1. Derek surveyed their surroundings with his cloudy gray eyes.
2. She kissed the envelope with her full lips, leaving a bright red lipstick mark behind.
3. He grasped the sword hilt in his shaking hands.

What's the problem here? Take a moment to look again.

The problem is that each of these sentences contains an awkward, redundant phrase. In example one, the phrase "with his cloudy eyes" is unneeded—how else would someone survey their surroundings, after all? In the second example, of course she kissed "with her full lips." That's the body part that kisses. In example three, we already know that he's grasping with his hands, so telling us that is redundant and unnatural.

So why do writers do this? If you'll look at our example sentences, you'll notice that each of the named body parts is preceded by an adjective: cloudy eyes, full lips, and shaking hands. These adjectives are the reason the authors included the redundant phrase. 

In example one, for instance, Derek is being introduced to the audience for the first time. The author wanted the readers to know that his eyes were a cloudy gray, but didn't simply want to say "Derek's eyes were a cloudy gray."  And that was a good goal—this is a more interesting way to find out what the character looks like—but you can usually do better than an otherwise-redundant phrase.

Here are some examples of how these sentences could be reworked.

Make the body part the subject of the sentence: Just about every sentence needs a subject, after all, so it's unlikely to be redundant.

1. Derek's cloudy gray eyes surveyed the surroundings.
2. Her full lips kissed the envelope, leaving a bright red lipstick mark behind.
3. His shaking hands grasped the sword hilt.

Give the body part something else to do: Add a phrase or sentence that further describes the action of the original sentence.

1. Derek surveyed their surroundings; the blinding light made his cloudy gray eyes water.
2. She kissed the envelope. Her full lips left a bright red lipstick mark behind.
3. His hands shook uncontrollably as he grasped the sword hilt.

Try to work the adjective in somewhere or somehow else: This can be the trickiest solution, but also often the most subtle and graceful.

1. Derek surveyed their surroundings. Lina studied his eyes; they were intense and focused as he searched, the same cloudy grey as the water beneath the boat.
2. She kissed the envelope, leaving behind full red lipstick marks.
3. He grasped the sword, trying to keep the point from wavering. It didn't work.

P.S.

Remember that specifying that a character performed an action "with" something is fine if it wasn't clear how the action was performed. For instance:

He sliced the steak with a worn shark-tooth knife.

This is a fine way to describe the knife. It's not redundant because there is more than one tool for slicing steak, so it's natural to explain what the character is using to slice.