Hyphenation of non-combat-related injury
As I understand it, we are to hyphenate phrases which consist of several adjectives strung together to form a single thought. I would, therefore, assume "non-combat-related injury" is the proper hyphenation of the phrase. "Non-combat" should be hyphenated, without question, but should the hyphen exist between "combat" and "related"? Normally I would assume so, but attempting to Google it, I find that most of the top hits suggest "non-combat related injury" is standard. It sounds like it is a related injury (!?) of the non-combat variety (umm...), but apparently, it's standard.
I was just going to run with it until I realized I also had to use the phrase "combat-related injury" wherein the hyphen does, commonly, come between combat and related - as expected.
Should I stick to the standard hyphenation ("non-combat related injury") or try to smooth things over grammatically by saying "non-combat-related injury"? Or am I overthinking it? Or am I missing something obvious?
Solution 1:
Let's overthink this together.
The basic structure is non- + X, meaning “not X”; and X in this case is the hyphenated “combat-related”; argal, non-combat-related. So your initial instinct was (to my mind) correct.
But as you realize, that’s not a very happy result. What you’re trying to do is to distinguish injuries which are “related to combat” from those which are “not related to combat”. By taking “combat-related” rather than “related to combat” as your base form, you’re essentially locking yourself into a structure in which further hyphenation must give rise to an ambiguity: does non- apply to combat or to combat-related — or possibly only to related?
When that happens to me I take it as a sign that I’m treating the syntax as if it were a mathematical formula instead of an organism. I’m trying to push the language in a direction it’s not designed to go. So I look for a way to rewrite. I see several options:
- combat-related injury / combat-unrelated injury ... unambiguous, but not to my ear English.
- combat injury / non-combat injury ... acceptable (what does -related add to your discussion?), but may not suit the context—for instance, you may be dealing with a DoD-defined category named “combat-related”.
- combat-related injury / injury, not combat-related ... truly awful, but at one time pretty much the US Armed Forces standard
- combat-related injury / other injury ... the bureaucratic throw-your-hands-in-the-air solution.
- CR injury / non-CR injury or even NCR injury ... ugly, but if your publisher buys in it saves typing, so somebody wins something.
- combat-related injury / injury not related to combat ... ponderous, but unambiguous.
My vote would be 2 if it will fly, 6 if it won't—and *combat-related / not combat-related if you're dealing with DoD rules.