katerina turevich Jun 20, 2015:

yes, I don't think anybody reading a pathology report would have a problem understanding what this means, hyphen or no hyphen.
To say something in general about English syntax: there are rules, and there is a rule of thumb. The rule of thumb is to make it easier (for the reader), to avoid misunderstanding - it applies to almost all punctuation marks.

Barend van Zadelhoff Jun 20, 2015:

So there is at least one relevant rule: you should avoid possible misreading.

And you would be free to use:

'foreign body type multinucleated giant cells'

Visually easy, free of any cumbersome details.

Barend van Zadelhoff Jun 20, 2015:

Hello Katerina, First I need to say, I don't really know the rules, insofar as they exist.
Secondly, this is about a specific case:

This week we tackle a common hyphenation error: failing to hyphenate a compound with a participle when it precedes the term that it modifies.

Examples:
good looking glass
good-looking glass

Like most other hyphenation rules, its rationale is that clarifying what modifies what prevents misreading.

For example, a “good looking glass” could describe a high-quality mirror, but a “good-looking glass” is more likely to represent an attractive tumbler. (interesting)

If we use the 'misread or to not misread rule' ;-), then, I would expect:

'foreign body type multinucleated giant cells' will not be misunderstood.

Formally, if I understand the lady from your article correctly, it should be:

foreign body-type

—“an adjective-and-noun compound when it precedes the term it modifies”—

where 'foreign body' = the 'adjective' and 'type' the noun.

Not 100% sure I understand it correctly.
She refers to a rule in APA Style.

At the same time she says, as you indicated, that you could also use the 'misread or to not misread rule' rather than following APA Style.

katerina turevich Jun 20, 2015:

Yes Barend, I took a look too, much further then just one page.

Yes, all possible solutions are there. I suspect, there are no rules for this. So then, it becomes a matter of personal preference? I like the first one you typed out, the one that gets only 3 hits. Visually easy, free of any cumbersome details.
This is from one of the styleguides: (you have to scroll down to the first comment): "On the other hand, a guiding principle of the section on hyphenation is that if a compound adjective can be misread, use a hyphen, and alternatively, if it’s highly unlikely that a compound adjective will be misread, don’t use a hyphen. " from the APA Styleguide http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/01/hyphenation-challe...

Barend van Zadelhoff Jun 20, 2015:

@Katerina "hyphenated" facts :-)

I had a look on site uk.

First 20 relevant (adjectival phrase) hits:

foreign body type 3
foreign-body type 3
foreign-body-type 6
foreign body-type 8

Conclusion?

katerina turevich Jun 19, 2015:

"Hyphenated" thoughts I understand the logic behind inserting a hyphen before 'type', as the whole construction is used as an adjectival phrase, but I still think it looks better as 'foreign-body type'. That is normally the way you see it. Whereas putting it between 'foreign body-type' creates some kind of a stumbling block. At least with me. It looks weird.