If a set of proofs contained the text "an 18 year-old", and "an up to-date dictionary", would you intervene, and suggest in either/both case/s, that there needed to be an additional hyphen? The jury may usually be out, when it comes to hyphenation, and the author/editor's style is usually respected; but would it be seen to be incorrect/too sloppy to only partly hyphenate what are usually entirely-hyphenated terms?
Hi, I am doing a 'proofreading' certification, and one of the practise exercises is causing me to pause for thought. I figure that folk here will know the answer to this question.
Consider the following two passages: "Our freelancer is working on the last sixty folios of a complex legal typescript which has demanded absolute concentration of the very difficult readings structure.";
"The author will have been given the detailed style guide before beginning work, and will have had discussions about how his book is going to fit into the series pattern."
Should there be an apostrophe before the 's' in "readings structure", to indicate that the structure belongs to the difficult reading? Is there any logic which could justify the omission of which? Furthermore, would it be seen to be over-intervening, for this to be added.
On a similar note: should "series pattern" have an apostrophe aftrer "series"?
