Forum: Author Hangout

... in the case of easily confused phrases (when you don't know how to evaluate the order of the words)

I am especially cautious when any quantifiers (e.g. more, less, most, least) appear before other modifiers in front of a noun.
Those words almost always have two potential meanings:
- one as an adverb modifying the adjective which follows it
- the other as an adjective modifying the final noun.
Once any of those words are being used, I tend to hyphenate all compound modifiers, even if they aren't essential. It simply makes it easier for readers when they can see any compound modifier(s) in among some string of other single-word modifiers.
I would still do that with adverbs ending in '-ly', for example, in this case if the words 'lesser known' were replaced with 'rarely used'.
I think ensuring clarity for readers is more important than slavishly following any rules on punctuation -- even those which suggest punctuation marks are not essential in some circumstances. It's possible to go overboard on those too.

EDIT TO ADD
To CW - That came out sounding like a rant at you. I agree with your point, and was adding the point that using quantifiers is, in my experience, the most common cause of 'easily confused phrases'.

It works without the hyphen as well so why hyphenate it?

It doesn't work. I got tripped up and misinterpreted it. If the author had been more careful they could have prevented that.
I think this is a case of an author going 'overboard' by slavishly following rules suggesting no punctuation mark is necessary.

You wouldn't hyphenate "lesser-known" in that case.

I have no problem if you choose against hyphenating it, but it would be wrong to suggest others should not.

Just give my opinion ...

I recognise you're usually very good at avoiding sounding dogmatic.
In this case, your choice of the words "You wouldn't ..." was a bit ... unfortunate? :)

but people in general do.

I understood you weren't using it personally, but in general, and that is what I disagree with.
My guess is a large majority of published fiction would have expressions like 'lesser-known' hyphenated.

You quoted Grammar Girl as saying this:

The reason I didn't say that I absolutely should have hyphenated "noise canceling headphones" is that if leaving out the hyphen causes no ambiguity, some style guides, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, say it's OK to leave it out; and I don't think anyone would read my meaning differently with or without a hyphen.

This is located at http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/how-to-use-a-hyphen?page=1

GRAMMAR GIRL GOT THAT ONE WRONG!
CMOS definitely does not support her contention that it is "OK" to omit a hyphen from 'noise-canceling headphones'.
[Note, I'm not claiming to know more about grammar than Grammar Girl. I'm claiming I have the book she quoted in front of me, and her interpretation of one section, 7.80, is incorrect, because she overlooked the fact that section is only relevant when the conditions listed in another section, 7.85, are not applicable.]

The relevant section in CMOS is 7.85, titled 'Hyphenation guide for compounds and words formed with prefixes'.
This section begins with an introduction to tables as follows (with some parts edited for simplicity)

When using this guide … consult the preceding paragraphs in this section (7.77–84)—especially if a relevant example cannot be found. 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. The first section (of the following table) deals with compounds according to category; the second section, with compounds according to parts of speech. The third section lists …

The 'noise-canceling' example is covered in the second section of the table with the entry for 'noun + participle'. CMOS recommendation 'hyphenated before a noun, otherwise open'. It provides an example of 'clothes-buying grandmother'. Note that there is no potential ambiguity with that phrase, yet CMOS still recommends the compound adjective should be hyphenated.

The quote in CMOS that Grammar Girl has misinterpreted appears to be 7.80, titled 'Hyphens and readability'. It states:

A hyphen can make for easier reading by showing structure and, often, pronunciation. Words that might otherwise be misread, such as 're-creation' or 'co-op', should be hyphenated. Hyphens can also eliminate ambiguity. For example, the hyphen in much-needed clothing shows that the clothing is greatly needed rather than abundant and needed. Where no ambiguity could result, as in 'public welfare administration' or 'graduate student housing', hyphenation is unnecessary.

That section is horribly written, but it should not be applied unless there is no suitable example in 7.85. One situation which has no example in 7.85 is with two nouns modifying another noun. There may be others, but that is the form of both examples they provided. Note that those examples do not have a compound adjective. Both 'welfare administration' and 'student housing' make sense on their own, and they are merely being further modified when the 'public' and 'graduate' are added in front of them. That is not so with the example she was considering, nor the one we have been discussing. Neither 'canceling headphones' nor 'known archetypes' make sense.

I've sent you a copy of the original. Note that the table from 7.85 has been transferred to a separate sheet called 'HYPHENS'.
If you look at that you will see it includes specific examples showing what it recommends for both 'lesser-known archetypes' and 'noise-canceling headphones'.
In the row called 'adverb not ending in ly + participle or adjective' there is the example 'a lesser-paid colleague'. Replace one past participle, paid, with another, known, and it is clear it recommends 'lesser-known' should be hyphenated when it comes before a noun.
Likewise, in the row called 'noun + participle' there is an example 'a clothes-buying grandmother'. That is using the same parts of speech as 'noise-canceling headphones', i.e. noun participle noun. CMOS recommends hyphenating both.
The quotes you mentioned from 7.80 are not relevant to either of those situations. 'Lesser-paid' and 'noise-canceling' are compound adjectives, but 'public welfare' and 'graduate student' are not.
* *
Consider this ... you are effectively claiming an exception exists for compound adjectives should be hyphenated: only do so when some potential for ambiguity exists. If that was so, why would anyone mention 'except adverbs ending in -ly'? ... THINK ABOUT THIS! ... The thing that distinguishes adverbs ending in -ly is they automatically have no potential for ambiguity. If the writer wants that word to modify a distant noun instead of the next word, they will drop the -ly from the adverb to create the corresponding adjective. If what you are saying was correct, none of us would ever have heard the expression 'except adverbs ending in -ly' - they would already all be covered by the exception for when there is no potential ambiguity.

You may be right. But I found in the past ...

Trust me! On this point I am right ... Grammar Girl got this one wrong!
* *
I DO NOT claim what you do is wrong. There are various styles which can be adopted. I gather from Wikipedia that some style guides recommend the style you use. CMOS is NOT one of them.
Not hyphenating when there is no potential ambiguity CAN be done, but the author must be VERY CAREFUL.
I would strongly recommend against it for all except very experienced authors.
It is so easy for an author to look at something they've written and be unable to see an alternative interpretation someone else might find. That is why guides like CMOS recommend hyphenating ALL compound adjectives (except the -ly adverbs and a few quantifiers) even though they will often appear superfluous. That is what is done for most fiction produced by the major publishing houses.
[BTW, there is another exception I have not mentioned above that should not be hyphenated. Proper nouns, e.g. United States, do not need to be hyphenated. The capital letters have the effect of grouping words as an indivisible unit that otherwise would require hyphens.]
* *
I see a very similar advantage in doing so consistently to that gained when serial commas are used consistently. Yes, you will end up using more punctuation than seems necessary, but it protects you from writing something that has an easily overlooked, ambiguous interpretation.
There really shouldn't be very many of them. If an author thinks they may be hyphenating too often, they should probably look at whether they are hyphenating some things that aren't truly compound adjectives.
There are examples in CMOS 7.80 which writers could easily get wrong. At first glance, it may appear that the 'public' in 'public welfare administration' is only modifying 'welfare'. Writers may be tempted to hyphenate them. The question writers should consider (I think, and this can get very tricky) is whether 'public' can be considered to be modifying 'welfare administration'. Yes, it can, so 'public welfare' is not a compound adjective. and it does not need to be hyphenated.
Likewise, 'graduate' can be considered to be modifying 'student housing', so 'graduate student' does not need to be hyphenated.
* *
To SB, I'm sorry if I was coming on a bit strong on this issue. I know you are experienced and careful enough to use your style successfully. I was concerned that newer authors reading this thread may think what you do is the usual practice. It is not. Dragons be there! So much so that few of the best (published) authors even dare to go there.

I'm not arguing with anyone's opinion about whether it is better to hyphenate them or not. I'm arguing the matter of fact about what CMOS recommends hyphenating them.
IT DOES. And the fact that neither of these two would be ambiguous is irrelevant to their recommendation.
Some style do what Grammar Girl suggests. CMOS is NOT one of them. They recommend all compound adjectives (with only a few exceptions) should be hyphenated.
The reason, as I see it, for that is it's just too hard for authors to spot when some ambiguous interpretations are possible. Anyone who tries is bound to get it wrong sometimes.
That's why most published authors routinely hyphenate compound adjectives - even when it's bleeding obvious that an ambiguous interpretation is not possible.

Then Grammar Girl was just covering up her mistake by pointing out the ambiguity statement in CMOS. After all, her real job is a professional editor.

That is, sadly, the conclusion I came to.

The original phrase was Three lesser known Archtypes.

The original phrase was:

Three More Lesser Known Archetypes, from WRITERS HELPING WRITERS®.

thus the ambiguity of 'More Lesser".

So if you believe it would trip someone up, it's best to hyphenate it.

So, since their use of 'more lesser' did trip someone up, it should be hyphenated?