Usage
Q. If I’m in the United States and I’m quoting a person in Canada, do I say he is from “city, county,” or “city, Canada?” Answer »
Q. Several times lately I’ve written or revised copy to change the word in the prepositional phrase following “kinds of” or “types of” to the singular from the plural—from “what kinds of cats?” “three types of errors” to “what kinds of cat,” “three types of error.” And several times a client has treated the resulting phrase like an error. I haven’t found the answer to this usage question in CMOS. What do you think? Answer »
Q. I’m a bond lawyer, which means that I regularly draft documents that refer to the debt service on bonds. That includes the principal of the bonds, the redemption premium, if any, on the bonds, and the interest on the bonds. Note that the prepositions attached to these categories of debt service differ: Principal “of,” but premium and interest “on.” My problem is that a common—and old—way of describing the debt service on bonds is, “the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the bonds.” Because the phrase refers to two classes (i.e., terms that take the preposition “of” and terms that take the preposition “on”) as well as two items within one of those classes (i.e., redemption premium and interest), shouldn’t there be TWO conjunctions (i.e., “the principal of, AND redemption premium, if any, AND interest on the bonds”)? Some drafters use the construction that I have suggested is correct, but many others, citing tradition, use the single-conjunction form. Which is correct? Answer »
Q. I’ve gotten into an argument online with a person who said that The Chicago Manual of Style states that it is okay to use the word, “alot.” I find this hard to believe because, “alot” is not a word, but I was unable to confirm or deny this on your site. Furthermore, he seems to think that all spelling rules are flexible and a matter of personal style, and he again uses The Chicago Manual of Style to back his position up. Could you shed some insight onto this situation? Answer »
Q. In the U.S. Army supply system, writers refer to requested supplies as dues-in (more than one due-in not yet received), and dues-out (more than one due-out not yet issued to a requestor). The GPO Style Manual (paragraph 5.7) seems to prescribe due-ins and due-outs as the correct plural form (examples they give are tie-ins, run-ins, come-ons). What do you say about these plural forms? Many thanks for your help! Answer »
Q. Hi. We are having a debate at work. We live in Madison, the capital city of Wisconsin. We recently moved into a new office space and named the main conference room the Capital Room. Many of us think it should be “Capitol” because it is named after the state capitol. Others think only the capitol building can be spelled with the “o.” Please advise us so we can get back to work. Thank you. Answer »
Q. Is it “happy medium” or “happy median”? The author writes: “We would all be much better served as stewards of finite public funds if we could find that happy median where trust reigns supreme . . .” Thanks! Answer »
Q. I find that some of my writers start a sentence with the word “Because,” and I am tempted to change it to “Since.” For example, one writes “Because the object is selected, it changes as you move the slider.” Answer »
Q. Hello: I am working on writing and editing thank-you letters to faculty and staff participants in a curriculum session for third-year medical students. Should I treat “data” as a singular or a plural noun? I have been looking for a definitive answer to this question in online style manuals and grammar guides. If its answer is already in the CMOS and you could refer me to the appropriate part of the Web site where this information is posted, that would be excellent. Answer »
Q. Which one is correct: “alright” or “all right”? Answer »
Q. What is the rule for correct usage of “drive” and “ride”? I was trying to explain this difference to a non-English-speaking colleague, but it appears somewhat illogical on the basis of normal usage. Answer »
Q. Is it correct now to use “woman” as an adjective? I know dictionaries list it as such, but dictionaries are reflectors of common usage, not arbiters of proper grammar. I have an author who insists on using “woman activist,” rather than “female activist,” because according to her that’s the common usage in her professional field. I hate the usage because I see it as both incorrect and undesirable—unless we’re going to start using “man activist” as well. Answer »
Q. My editorial staff is split over whether “the job will take a while” or “the job will take awhile” is correct. Some of us argue that “awhile” is an adverb modifying the verb “will take.” Others of us maintain that “a while” is a noun and is the direct object of the transitive verb “will take.” We all swear by Chicago here, so if you could clarify the usage of “awhile” and “a while” with regard to transitive verbs, that would be great. Answer »
Q. I have noticed that the adjective “archival” is frequently used as a noun. For example, “How do we proceed with the archival of last year’s documents?” A search on Google.com for the phrase “archival of” reveals that as many as 17,000 sites use the phrase in this way. Is this an acceptable usage? Answer »
Q. Which is correct, “If I were you . . .” or “If I was you . . .”? Answer »
Q. Please help resolve a debate: Is it proper (or good) academic form to begin a sentence with a conjunction: “And I believe that is true.” “But editors differ on this rule.” “Nor is this uncommon.” I say it is improper in academic writing that is heading for publication, while others with journalism training say that it is correct. We are editors for an academic law review. Answer »
Q. I work for an organization that uses a fair amount of corporate lingo in its publications. The expression “visibility into” seems to be widely used in place of the expression “insight into” . . . this confuses me (okay, it also annoys me). Based on the common definition of “visibility,” does it really make sense to say that one has “visibility into” something? Before I start a campaign to eradicate what I see as an unsightly phrase, can you tell me if the phrase “visibility into” meets the standards of acceptable usage? Answer »
Q. A coworker insists “protests against” is never correct because “protests” normally implies someone is against something. I think it depends on context, because one can protest for, say, human rights. Is “protests against” ever correct? I wrote: “A farmer sleeps at a protest against the World Trade Organization in New Delhi.” Answer »
Q. I have been using the title “professor emerita” with the names of retired female professors. Now one of those professors insists that I have confused sex with grammatical gender. She writes, “The phrase is Latin; the noun ‘professor’ is masculine and should be modified by the masculine form of the adjective—‘emeritus’—regardless of the professor’s gender.” Since the fifteenth edition of CMOS has used “professor emerita” as part of an example at paragraph 8.31, I’m assuming that this usage is correct. Can you weigh in on this? Answer »
Q. I am uncertain about the correct usage in the following sentence: “There is no solution, since the absolute value, by definition, can not be equal to a negative number.” I’ve looked through your book and it appears to me that it is a closed (or solid) compound word—cannot. The editor I work for insists that it is can not. Please advise. Answer »
Q. I have lived abroad now almost twenty years and fear my English may be tainted by other grammars. A friend, who has been married three times to three different women, recently wrote: “She reminds me of my first and third wives.” I feel that it should be: “She reminds me of my first and third wife.” In other words, “She reminds me of my first (wife understood but not expressed) and my third wife.” There are other languages with this sort of unexpressed noun usage where the adjective is marked by both gender and syntax. Am I totally off base here? Answer »
Q. In a recent William Safire column, “On Language,” in the New York Times, Safire devoted the column to addressing the mistakes he might have made during 2002, and his readers’ corrections. This is part of one of them: Answer »
Q. I have a question about usage rather than style, but probably relevant to this site nonetheless. In your fifteenth edition, paragraph 6.92, in the first example sentence, you use “can” in the clause “can he have been out of his mind?” Several sources, including Michael Swan’s Practical English Usage, state that ‘could’ is used to talk about past possibility. Is using ‘can’ a mistake? Answer »
Q. It grates on my ear to listen to the BBC (particularly sports) newscasts talk about countries in the plural form, e.g., “England are preparing for next week’s match.” Can this be correct? I only began noticing it a couple of years ago, and I seem to recall that the practice even extends to cities or team names (Bayern Munich are out of the playoffs . . .). Your assistance would be much appreciated. Answer »
Q. May I please ask if nouns can sometimes be used as verbs. For example, “His emotions nuance his words.” Thank you. Answer »
