Some memories I have of this subject are that the usual rule of thumb - such as it is - is that you should look at the sentence and see if one version or another makes more sense.

In the 'fancy dress' example, 'fancy-dress party' describes a 'ape costume' party better than 'fancy dress party' (which might mean a fancy party where people come in dress - as in the military or black-tie sense) or 'fancy dress-party' which, as Emma says, could mean a party where everyone wears a dress.

'Short term' again depends upon usage.

In the short term I'll be living in Wallingford.

No hyphen because we're talking about a short period of time and the sentence can't really mean anything else.

This is a short-term solution.

We're still talking about short periods of time but the sentence could be confusing without a hyphen because the sentence might mean a solution that involves short terms, such as in a written work of definitions.

A 'grown-up' as in an adult, would I think always be hyphenated. Again, look at whether the sentence makes sense (or could be misunderstood) without it.

A grown-up version of this plant is available.

Pretty clearly means that a more mature version of the plant can be bought.

A grown up version of this plant is available.

This might mean something else. It suggests that the normal plants are grown down or sideways but that you can specify one that grows upwards.

It's tricky but I think in most cases the 'sense' test can be helpful. Ask yourself if the sentence says what you intended it to say or if it could be read differently. This does require a degree of detachment - obviously you know what you want it to say so you have to 'step back' as it were.

Jon

Hart's gives short-term a hyphen...

"Many compound words having more than one stress require a hyphen, eg. cross-question, easy-going, short-term."

But as Emma quite rightly says, errors like this would not put a professional off (I'm sure most agents and commissioning editors don't go near Hart's Rules, that's what copy-editors are for). It's the more painful errors you have to eliminate (its / it's, there / their, oh god don't get me started...).

Myrtle

P.S. in my former life as a copy-editor, changing no-one to no one was probably my most frequent correction.

Thanks Jon,
I guess I was hoping for some straight forward rule to follow, whereas I should know by now that when it comes to writing it is often a question of what 'feels' best in each individual case. In a way I feel as if I've opened a can of worms but the positive outcome is that I'll be relying less on the computer - I've just been on Amazon to check out 'New Hart's Rules'.

By the way, for anyone who read me on the rejection pledge thread, I've just noticed Carole Blake's book on Amazon even cheaper than the gracious discount she offered me in my rejection letter! I might buy that as well.

Sammy

Jon and Emma thanks for that. This is really interesting, as I've never given it that much thought! Now I'll be watching out for them, and hence, expanding my grammar a bit.

JB

By the way, any WWer who's a member of the Society of Authors can get all OUP books for 25% off... Hart's Rules therefore not £12.99 but... well, around £9.25.

Emma

Hart's gives short-term a hyphen...

... but surely only in situations where that is the correct form, i.e. it's hyphenated, not a single word?

In the short-term I'll be living in Wallingford.

looks and feels wrong to me in that sentence, possibly because of the definite article.

Short-term I'll be living in Wallingford.

looks OK.

Of course, I'm basing all this on gut instinct rather than hard knowledge so I'll claim no high position!

Jon

Jon I'm sure you're right:

'In the short term, [as opposed to the long term, the autumn term or the law term] we'll be living in Acacia Avenue...'

I think it should only have a hyphen where the two words are action to ether as an adjective: 'our short-term plan is to live in Acacia Avenue, our long-term plan is to emigrate...'

Emma

<Added>

'action to ether' sound interesting, but not what I meant - how about 'acting together'?

Yes I see what you mean and would have said the same had I not looked in the damn book (!)...though why would they single it out along with easy-going as a separate rule, rather than assume you'd read the first rule about hyphenating for sense when two words are working together?

Eyes have glazed over, so not read whole thread, but have to take issue with no-one/no one.

I always use no-one where it’s used as one word and, without the hyphen, it would look wrong (noone), in the way co-op needs a hyphen.

Got to be brief - dead on feet!

Dee

I've checked about a dozen sources (incl. Oxford Writers' Dictionary, newspaper style guides, publishers' style guides) and they all say 'No one (two words)', so this would seem to be the modern usage.

Ha! In Cloud Atlas, vantage point is vantage-point. It seems nobody knows how to properly write this word!

JB

JB, how many books did you read through last night looking for that?

... and did you find no-one anywhere?

I think vantage point is going to go similar to 'short-term'.

From his vantage point on the ridge, he could see the buffalo dancing.

Should, I think, be unhyphenated because it makes sense and there's no other reading of it.

'To see the buffalo dancing, that's the best vantage-point,' he said.

Should, I think, be hyphenated because without it, it's possible to read the sentence as 'that's the best vantage point and over there is the best singing point.'

Jon