Usage
Q. If I am referring to the year 1900, do I say “at the turn of the nineteenth century” or “at the turn of the twentieth century”? Most of the writers I’ve edited use the latter, but I’ve always thought the former makes more sense, in that the nineteenth century is doing the actual “turning.” I’ve asked other editors and no one seems to know, so I’ve always edited around this. Answer »
Q. When asking someone “how are you”? Is it appropriate to use “I am good” in lieu of “I am well”? Answer »
Q. I work in a law office where they regularly use terms like “via e-mail” or “via the U.S. mail.” I had been taught that “via” actually means “by way of” not “by means of.” In other words, we travel from one city to another city via a certain route; we send a message by e-mail. I realize that English usage is an evolutionary process and that common but otherwise incorrect grammar ultimately can become “correct.” Is that what has happened to via? Answer »
Q. My question concerns the use of British vs. American spellings in quoted material when the quoted material has not yet been published. In a technical report I’m editing, we are changing British to American spellings per our in-house style guide. But there are quite a few quotations from a questionnaire that was conducted as part of the research report. The quotations were submitted with British spellings. Should these quotes be changed to American spellings to match the American style of the rest of the report? I did see in CMOS 7.5 that “in quoted material, however, spelling is left unchanged,” but I’m wondering whether we should make an exception to the rule here for consistency within the book. Answer »
Q. I am currently editing chapters for eight engineers who are writing a technical book. Several use the style of writing that I call the “we” style, for example, “We should now add this code in the command line.” I am trying to direct them in the direction of talking to the reader using the “you” style, by rephrasing the same sentence to say, “You should add this code to your command line.” Or, even better “Add this code to your command line.” My problem is that some of them are balking at this tone and want to know what I’m basing this change on. I have tried to find some definite rules regarding this, but so far have not. Can you give me some references regarding this? Answer »
Q. As an editor of regulatory documents, I routinely come across sentences in which the subject is an inanimate object but the verb denotes something only a person can do. Examples are “this document analyzes the hazards” and “the analysis considers the environmental impacts.” Does this type of thing have a name? Inappropriate anthropomorphism or personification? Is there a rule I can cite when explaining to the author why I have suggested rewording the sentence? Answer »
Q. I am writing a short story in first person. Does the tense need to be in the present as I tell it or in the past? The story is a past memory. Answer »
Q. It seems the phrase “in regards to” is becoming more popular, but I believe it is often misused. Shouldn’t “I want to speak to you in regards to your insurance policy” be “I want to speak to you in regard to your insurance policy”? Answer »
Q. I’m editing a book, and many persons mentioned in early chapters appear later. When the author provides biographical information about the person in the early chapters, he often says something like “Mary Smith would become superintendent of schools in 1976.” The “woulds” are becoming annoying. I suppose we could alter them by using “will.” But because the text is overwhelmingly in the past tense (because it’s speaking about the past) I’m wondering if something like the following could work now and then as an alternative to all the “woulds”: “In 1976 Mary Smith became superintendent of schools.” Would putting that in parentheses be enough of an indicator to the reader that we’re slipping something in that they might like to know? Answer »
Q. Is it an historical novel or a historical novel? Answer »
Q. Good morning. What is the right preposition after the noun “change”? I thought it was always “in.” However, Cambridge.org gives the following examples: Answer »
Q. I am editing a novel that is written in the past tense, and a past perfect question has begun to haunt me. When speaking of events that took place in the more remote past, does every verb need to be conjugated in past perfect, or only the first? For example, would one write, Answer »
Q. Please help me to defend this. The boss thinks it’s wrong. “The fit, the style, the stores. It’s all right here.” She thinks it should be “They’re all right here.” Please help me defend “it’s.” Thanks so much. Answer »
Q. Clearly, the word “cannot” is in the dictionary as one word. But does this mean that it is incorrect to say “can not” as two words? This controversy is raging in my office and has some people very upset. What are your thoughts? Answer »
Q. While incorporating Latin or Greek words into an English text, what case should be used? Take, for example, the phrase “taking up the question of kronon kai ton kairon.” Normally, the English preposition “of” should take the genitive, but the student is relying on a scriptural text which has the preposition peri and has reproduced the accusative case. He could have avoided the difficulty by using the English preposition “about”; however, should he remain faithful to the Greek text or put the Greek words into the genitive, in accord with the English preposition? Answer »
Q. I work as an editor for a law firm in Taiwan and was asked whether there is a difference between “attachment” and “enclosure” at work today. One camp is saying that something that is sent along with an e-mail can only be called an “attachment,” and something sent along with a traditional letter or a fax can only be referred to as an “enclosure”; meanwhile, another camp makes no distinction between “attachment” and “enclosure,” or for that matter, “to attach” and “to enclose.” Answer »
Q. To me, 12:00 is either noon or midnight, never a.m. or p.m. I keep seeing copy that says “before 12 p.m.” and I can’t convince the copywriters that this is confusing. Can you cite any rule that would clarify this once and for all? Answer »
Q. A few of my colleagues in the office seem to be making no distinction between “as well as” and “and.” I find the dictionary definition (“and in addition”) less than clear—although notably the examples pair only two items. Surely you would not provide a list including items “one, two, three, as well as four”? Answer »
Q. I’ve agreed to help a friend copyedit his dissertation (Ph.D., history). My friend uses “entitled” instead of “titled” when referring to conferences, books, dissertations, and articles. Examples include: He presented his work at a 1990 conference entitled “History and Education”; and Sam Smith’s 1964 dissertation, entitled “The Literacy Movement,” argues against Brown’s theory. OED marks this use of entitled as archaic. But it is not my dissertation, and I’m being paid only in beer. What would CMOS do? Answer »
Q. When I grammar-checked the following sentence: “Please note that this account is not registered to you, as the Tax Identification Number on the account and your Social Security Number are not an exact match,” the grammar check indicated that the sentence should read “is not an exact match.” Please advise. Answer »
Q. A colleague insists that this sentence is both ungrammatical and misuses a metaphor: “One of the major benefits of cloned stem cells could be as a more accurate window on diseases.” While I think the sentence is clumsy, I don’t see the mistake in grammar. And, while “accurate window” also isn’t elegant, a quick search on the Web turned up plenty of uses of “accurate window” on reputable academic and government agency sites. Who’s right? Answer »
Q. My question concerns the grammatical morass of using “due to” in a manuscript only to have a diligent copy editor consistently cross out the phrase and replace it with “caused by,” “as a result of,” or “resulting from.” The way I tend to use it is, e.g. “The optimism about human progress due to mechanization or technology . . .” Am I wrong? I am wasting hours of my life stetting these (as I see them, mistaken) changes. Is it wrong to care so very deeply? Should I just go have some tequila and simmer down? Answer »
Q. Would it be a gender-biased usage if you used “man-made element”? What could be the neutral substitute, “human-made element”? Answer »
Q. I regularly come across sentences in which “only” strikes me as being misplaced. An example: “Fish were only collected from the western portion of the pond,” which I think should be rewritten “Fish were collected only from . . .” because the former placement of “only” means “merely” or implies that something other than collecting could have been possible, whereas it is clear from the context that “only” is used to mean “there and nowhere else.” Am I correct? Or only nuts? Answer »
Q. I am a technical writer responsible for procedures used by electronics technicians. I am struggling with the best choice among documents I’ve inherited: the use of will, shall, must, are to, should (or anything better?) in sentences such as the following: “Work will not be performed on energized components if the surrounding area is wet.” This use of “will” is very off-putting to me; my choice would be “should.” Answer »
Q. I am taking a medical transcription class, where the teacher constantly states the adverbs before the main verbs in the sentence. When I correct this in the transcript, I get it counted wrong. According to the AAMT book of standards this should be corrected, so the doctor does not sound illiterate. The teacher states that the following is incorrect: It has actually been only ten months since I last saw him, but he unexpectedly was scheduled sooner than he had planned. She says it should be typed: It has actually been only ten months since I last saw him, but he was unexpectedly scheduled sooner than he had planned. Please give me some advice. Answer »
