Usage
Q. Will there ever be a word processing program designed to use only The Chicago Manual of Style? Answer »
Q. Is the following sentence grammatically incorrect, and if so, why? “My point will hopefully become clear in what follows.” I’ve been told that this sentence misuses the word “hopefully”—is that true? Answer »
Q. This might not be a point of grammar so much as a question of style, but how would you define the usage of the phrase “as such”? Could you argue for a strict explanation of when its use may or may not be appropriate? Many thanks for tackling this one. Answer »
Q. re your Q: “. . . should be modified by the masculine form of the adjective—‘emeritus’—regardless of the professor’s gender.” Let’s stomp this out! “Sex” is not a dirty word! People come in SEXes, not genders. Answer »
Q. What’s the preferred way to use the word “however” when it compares two sentences? I was edited consistently by one editor to move it to the front of the sentence. In the following example, is it better for “however” to start the second sentence, or is it fine as is? Example: Some have used the commandment translated in the King James Version of the Bible “Thou shalt not kill” as a prohibition of capital punishment. The commandment, however, refers to murder and is accurately translated “You shall not murder” in modern translations. Answer »
Q. Is it improper to say in a title, “Women Police: Portraits of Success”? My publisher says that it’s grammatically incorrect and that it should read “Female Police Officers: Portraits of Success” instead. I see “women police” in print everywhere, and there’s even a journal titled “Women Police.” I thought usage dictated rules of grammar, not the other way around. Your help, please. Answer »
Q. We have a disagreement in my office as to the usage of “this” as a pronoun. “The cooling holes were originally defined using two points. This was later revised to a start point and compound angles.” My coworker thinks that I need to add “definition” after “this.” While I agree it is a good idea in many cases to eliminate ambiguity, I don’t think it is required in this case. Is he right? Answer »
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. Please distinguish between per and as per. Answer »
Q. In the US 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. 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 website 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. I’m reviewing a scientific manuscript in which the copyeditor has changed every instance of “using” to “by using”—for instance, “describe a vector by using Cartesian coordinates.” I can find no usage manual that comments on “using” versus “by using,” and other people’s opinions seem to be split. Does “using” require a “by”? 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 »