Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth ed.) defines “Right of way” in part, as:
“Term used to describe a right belonging to party to pass over land of another, but is also used to describe that strip of land upon which railroad companies construct their road bed, and, when so used, the term refers to the land itself, not the right of passage over it.
As used with reference to right to pass over another’s, it is only an easement …”

Black’s Law Dictionary does not hyphenate the definition entry.

I am not an expert with words as so many here are. I work for a “Right Of Way Department" in an office, and I have gotten mixed signals as to hyphenation of this term. I would appreciate the opinions of any of the experts on this forum.
• In the context of using it as an easement right across another’s property, would you hyphenate it (as in “I have a right of way across your property”)?
• If you use it as a three-word prefix, such as “right-of-way easement” or “right-of-way line” would you do anything different than when it is a stand-alone term?
• Would you apply a different hyphenation rule when using it as a three-word term for the strip of land itself and not an easement “right” such as for a railroad or highway corridor (see definition above)?
• Finally, if you worked in the “Right Of Way Department” would you capitalize the full term, and would you hyphenate it then?

Follow-up question: The plural of “right of way” is “rights of way” with right being the operative term. What about when used as referring to the full-fee corridor land itself such as the railroad bed example above? Would you say “all of the Railroad rights-of-way” or all of the railroad “right-of-ways”.

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have. All of my peers are all over the place on this (as am I), and there is not a consistent rule within our organization. I can’t change that, but would like to try to start using this correctly (whatever that means).

That's a timely question for me because I just sent an email out about "out-of-state nursing programs." I did use the hyphen, but I thought minimalists probably wouldn't. I'd think the same with your example. However, I don't think one way is any better than another, is it, folks?

Right-of-way and out-of-state are compound words; that is, two or more words acting as one word. The hyphens join the words, essentially turning them into one word.

Wikipedia says:

quote:

Compound words are words that add together to make a new word, like the word side and walk, to make sidewalk. These words often develop over time.[1] They can start as two words joined with a hyphen, and then become a compound word. There are three types of compound words; closed, hyphenated and open.[1] A closed compound word is joined into one word like keyboard or makeup. A hyphenated word is two words joined with a hyphen like mother-in-law. Open compound words are words which are used together like police station, or fire engine.

Here are some other links:

Compound Words
This is the reference given in the Wikipedia article listed above.

English compound
Another Wikipedia article.

Compounds
Chicago Manual of Style Q&A regarding hyphens.

Chicago Manual of Style Online
10-page PDF in table form by Educause.

Daily Writing Tips: Hyphenation in Compound Nouns

Get it Write Writing Tip: April 27, 2003
Compound Words: When to Hyphenate

I'm sure you can find many more.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

I just think hyphens are going out of style. Here is an example of a government web site with out of state programs.

It's also PESB-Approved.

quote:

I just think hyphens are going out of style.

Because no one is being educated as to their proper use.

I kind of got it, and I kind of didn't understand at first. I have searched the internet somewhat for an answer before posting here. The biggest reaction I have gotten from my searches, and my peers, is that it doesn't really matter.

I am not so concerned with hyphens in general, but have had this kind of obsession about the term "right of way".

I woke up this morning with somewhat of an epiphany (I think I am using that term correctly). As I read here, it's often a "compound word". The principal purpose of hyphens, as I see it, is that you would use them when clarification needs to be made. When it can mean something different if you don't clarify it with a hyphen. I am glad I offered both definitions. (Just writing them helped me think)

In the more technical world, a "right of way" is a right. It might be a right of passage when two cars meet at an intersection and one car has the legal right to go ahead of the other, or it might mean an easement across someone else's land to pass across it. In which case it would not be full ownership but a limited use (you can't use it for anything other than to get across the land).

A railroad "right-of-way" corridor, that is owned by the railroad in fee-simple ownership is not merely an easement "right" where a different party owns the underlying land. Without the hyphens it would imply that is was a right, and would infer a limited use of the land. the "right-of-way corridor" would technically change its meaning if it were expressed without the hyphens. I can see where it wouldn't be important to the general public, but it is to us in certain fields. (Especially if you work in a right-of-way office)

I think I had gathered some of this knowledge before, but I wasn't fully putting it together in my head. It was posting the question and getting the answers that I got that made it suddenly hit me.

Generally speaking, I think if I could replace the word "way" with the word "passage" (right of passage), I will not hyphenate it. If I use it as a compound word where "right of passage" would not sound right, I will hyphenate it.

(Of course if any of you think I may be wrong, please let me know). Thank you guys for your responses.

tom

quote:

The use of the hyphen to mark compound words has existed in English since the 16c, and from an earlier date in various forms in words such as to-day and with-out. It has always been variable and unpredictable. In recent use, it appears to be diminishing in some circumstances: for example, when the elements of a compound are monosyllabic (birdsong, eardrum, playgroup; lambswool, formerly lamb's wool), in longer formation where the elements are regarded as closely associated (businesswoman, nationwide); were the two elements are regarded as having equal semantic weight, with the first acting as a modifier, forming a spaced pair (road sign, snow goose); and in prefixed forms such as coordinate and reuse. The absence of the hyphen in such cases is well established in AmE, and is becoming more common in BrE.

- The Oxford Companion to the English Language

quote:

Because no one is being educated as to their proper use.

You sound like Strunk and White. Remember, language and words evolve.

All you have to do is look at some tweets and text messages. I know there's a plethora of abbreviations but misspellings and other grammatical errors are abundant.

Oh, I agree with that, proof. But some punctuation conventions (and I think the use of the hypen is one of them) change over time, similar to how words (like moot) change over time.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
All you have to do is look at some tweets and text messages. I know there's a plethora of abbreviations but misspellings and other grammatical errors are abundant.

Yes, but nowadays people's scribblings are much more accessible nowadays. I would guess that their hurried first drafts also contained loads of errors as well. In addition, the still-clunky keyboards on smartphones and tablets that are mainly used to send text messages and Tweets tend to introduce or even encourage 'errors'. Stuff that we read from even the relatively recent past had the benefit of being checked by a, hem, professional proofreader and possibly a typographer before publication.

While I understand that words, punctuation, and spelling may change over time, it still strikes me that we need to use some kind of rules and standards at a short "snapshot in time" to come to some understanding.

If the use of, or lack of, hyphens could change the meaning, we need to consider more closely when to use them. No different than a poorly-placed comma, or a word that might have opposite connotations in different context.

quote:

Originally posted by Tom:
While I understand that words, punctuation, and spelling may change over time, it still strikes me that we need to use some kind of rules and standards at a short "snapshot in time" to come to some understanding.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that?

As to when to hyphenate "right-of-way"... the OED Online has the definition

quote:

b. N. Amer. The right to build and operate a railway line, road, or public utility on land belonging to another, esp. the state; an instance of this right.

There are 6 citations and only one is hyphenated.

Yes, Tom, I agree with you, too. It's just that some things change over time, including many of the rigid rules printed in Strunk and White, such as their description of the "horrible" practice of ending sentences with prepositions.

Arnie, in your last post, was hem a typo or does it have a meaning I am not aware of?

It's a little cough to draw attention to the fact that I've used "proofreader" in the sentence. It's more usually seen as ahem, but drops the initial letter when being used after a vowel.

quote:

b. N. Amer. The right to build and operate a railway line, road, or public utility on land belonging to another, esp. the state; an instance of this right.

There are 6 citations and only one is hyphenated.[/QUOTE]

That is quite the definition. One I don't think I have ever seen. A railway line, road, or public utility does not have a "right" to build on another's property without an easement (or full fee ownership). They may condemn for an easement (or ownership), but the ruling has to go in their favor. Even if they win, they are required to pay fair-market-value for the land (or the easement if that is the case). More often than not, from what I have seen, the private party stipulates to the larger entity on allowing them to build and the condemnation case is centered around fair-market-value.

As to the hyphenating, if I get a chance I will review the difference in the OED between the one that is hypenated and the other examples.

It's a linguistic definition, not a legal one.

quote:

It's more usually seen as ahem, but drops the initial letter when being used after a vowel.

I did not know about dropping the initial letter when used after a vowel. I learn something every day here!

Just talk with my husband, Tom. He is a lawyer who often works against the railroad conglomerates. I am sure his opinion would be that they take people's land all the time. They certainly don't pay "fair-market-value."

quote:

I did not know about dropping the initial letter when used after a vowel. I learn something every day here!

Well, I don't know if there's an actual rule to that effect, but it seems more euphonious to me.

quote:

Just talk with my husband, Tom. He is a lawyer who often works against the railroad conglomerates. I am sure his opinion would be that they take people's land all the time. They certainly don't pay "fair-market-value."

Kalleh,
Just compensation should happen. I assume that the cases that your husband sees have to do with what what the fair market value is, not the fact that it is supposed to be paid. (I’m no lawyer).

To my knowledge, the large public agency or railroad company gets the proposed land needed appraised, and the landowner has the right to an independent appraisal.

If it goes to condemnation, the courts decide what the fair market value is. I am saying that it is a legal right to be reimbursed just compensation for the land. Whether or not that is done is another matter, but if it doesn’t happen, that would be unjust in my opinion.

My point is that the railroad company can’t just start to build a railroad across your front yard and through your house without going through a procedure to take over (and pay for) your land. The final result could even require them to pay to relocate you to a new property of equal value, enjoyment, and use if necessary.

quote:

Whether or not that is done is another matter, but if it doesn’t happen, that would be unjust in my opinion.

Several years ago, a local art club that had owned and used a property for exhibitions and meetings had their building seized by eminent domain by the city. Within two months the property had been sold to a competing art club that moved in to exhibit their members' art. Needless to say, there were legal wranglings but the first club eventually caved, probably due to legal fees.

The other day I saw a story about a 102-year-old woman who owns property (not here) that has been used as a private parking lot for many years. The city is running out of parking due to some project and wanted to buy her lot. She refused and they used eminent domain to condemn the land, then use it for public (but not free) parking.

Both seem highly unjust.

Proofreader, I agree with you 100%. (If I linked it correctly) the following link is to an article about a recent supreme court case in a split-decision on a very controversial case of Eminent Domain.
legal-zoom article

The original intent of this principle of Eminent Domain, the way I see it, was to allow the building of a highway or railroad across country for the good of the people as a whole without being blocked by one landowner. (The good of the many over the benefit of a few). I can see both sides of this issue.

However, It has degenerated over the years to the extent that a City will declare a certain area "blighted" and condemn to seize the property and improve the area. It has resulted in a low-income project area being condemned for a WalMart, for instance, to improve the value and the quality of the area. This is extreme abuse of power and highly unjust in my opinion.

(Also note that the "fair market value" is very low when the current area is considered to be blighted. The owners do get paid for their land, but it is very little money.)

I hope no one here thinks I am in support of such actions. I was only talking about the principle that the agency in question is required by law to pay fair market value.

Here's an example of land taken (yes, the government paid for it, but the owners were told, "Take it or leave it."), not used, and now the government refuses to sell it back. A lot of unfair things happen in the name of "for the public good."

We call it 'compulsory purchase' over here.

Something very similar happened during the Victorian era when the railway companies bought up land, including large areas around the projected stations, at a relatively low price. Once the line was built they were able to sell the land at vastly increased prices.

Well, I guess at least it was the Victorian era. Still, we see lots of people being run over by the RR here (not literally of course, or at least not usually literally!).

Many years ago, the state of RI decided a new reservoir was needed and chose a site called Big River in central RI. They condemned the land and made plans to flood the area by building a dam. They told everyone in the area they had to move and many did. Others fought the project but lost. The state allowed them to stay on their property pending the beginning of construction, and collecting rent on the homes.

Then the project was cancelled after long deliberations. However, the original owners are still denied the ability to get it back even though there are no plans for the site.

The builders of our transcontinental railroads got free land from the government while building the network. Since it was based on track laid down, when the two companies moving from both west and east were close to connecting, they ignored each other and continued to build past each other. The government had to force them to alter direction to finally join up.