New Questions and Answers
from Chicago
Q. When spelling last names, are there rules? We have family names like LaFleur—should there be a space between the a and the f? Should the L be in caps or lowercase? When spelling place-names, there is a space—Los Angeles would never be spelled without the space—right? I am confused—can you help?
A. Unfortunately, I cannot help, because there are no rules. Each family gets to decide. If you check a phone book, you'll see many variations of such names.
Q. I'm working with an author who insists that the proper typesetting of the abbreviations a.m. and p.m. is to set them in small caps and separate the letters with periods. Citing CMOS, I indicated that the author was incorrect because it says that if these abbreviations are set in small capitals, then periods are unnecessary. However, when I showed the author that section in CMOS, she pointed out that in the second example provided to show proper use with words such as “morning” or “afternoon,” 11:00 P.M. is shown with both small caps and periods. Is there an exception to the rule that is being exhibited in this instance? Any light you can shed on this seeming discrepancy would be appreciated.
A. Certainly: when CMOS says that something is “unnecessary,” it doesn't mean that it's wrong; it means that it's an option that's not our preference.
Q. A coworker with a PhD in English lit comments that your example of title casing “Four Theories concerning the Gospel according to Matthew” isn't correct at all. “Concerning” and “according” are participles, not prepositions (thus these are participial, not prepositional, phrases). I've absolutely never seen “Gospel according to Anyone”—it's always “According to.” Thoughts? I'm not just nitpicking; trying to get a group of proofreaders and editors to pull together consistently on little stuff like this.
A. Gulp—a PhD in English lit? Well, here goes: Although “concerning” and “according” are participles, that doesn't stop them from forming prepositions. (You can confirm this in a dictionary.) In the title cited, “concerning” is a preposition with the object “Gospel,” and “according to” is a preposition with the object “Matthew,” so according to Chicago style they are lowercased. Many publishers follow a different guideline for title casing, however, by which all words over a certain length are uppercased, so it's not surprising if you see these prepositions uppercased in titles.
Q. I am editing a nonfiction trade book for an author who wants to use endnotes that begin with specific words in the text but that have no note numbers in the text. We are in rather strong disagreement about this. First, what do you call this style? Second, is this the new standard in trade publishing?
A. It isn't new; some University of Chicago Press books have used it. We call it “notes keyed to text.” It's especially favored for books meant for a general readership, because it's a little friendlier than those scholarly note numbers.
Q. What do you do about reproducing a table found in a work you are citing? Can it be used and cited the same way text can be?
A. There is some debate about this. One camp perceives a table as text and would cite it as you would a passage in a book or journal, without special permission (especially if you are merely using the data within the table). Another camp recommends getting permission, especially if you are reproducing wholesale a table that has a unique design or layout or interpretation of the data. If you have any doubts, seek the advice of your publisher.
Q. I write and edit a quarterly newsletter. There was no summer issue this year, as I was out with a medical emergency. Our volumes start with the fall issue. Does the numbering of the next issue continue as if nothing happened?
A. Let's say your fall 2008 newsletter was volume 5, number 1, and winter was volume 5, number 2. If you had missed the spring issue, you could have called the summer issue “Spring–Summer 2009” and labeled it volume 5, numbers 3–4. Glossing over the missing summer issue with “Summer–Fall 2009” would get messy, however, since the two seasons are in different volumes. Better to leave a bit of mystery about what happened to summer 2009 and make your fall issue volume 6, number 1.
Q. I see inconsistent usage in “she is a friend of Bill” versus “she is a friend of Bill's.” We say “a friend of his,” not “a friend of him,” so should the possessive control here?
A. Either is fine. The “double possessive” is standard usage, and sometimes it's needed to distinguish between, say, a lover of Mozart and a lover of Mozart's.
Q. I have been under the impression that extensions on a date (st, nd, rd, etc.) are proper when used simply with a month (January 15th) but are not used in connection with a year (January 15, 2009). Please advise if this is correct or provide instruction to the contrary.
A. Chicago style doesn't include the extensions in either case. When the ordinal is called for, we spell it out: the fifth of the month. That said, the style that you describe is common and not incorrect.
Q. When I am citing a periodical that does not provide the page number, but does provide the volume and issue, is it necessary to cite the issue number (e.g., Hameed 2009, 3:1)? Or how should this be cited?
A. Since the issue number (or month) will appear in the reference list citation, “Hameed 2009” is sufficient in the text citation.
Q. Hello, I've tried to grasp the rule on hyphenating a couple of words I'm confronted with; could you please confirm I'm right in my reasoning: nontoxic (“non-toxic” would look better); nonsmokers (“non-smokers” would look better); noneicosanoid functions (“non-eicosanoid” would look better; nonphosphorylated form (“non-phosphorylated” would look better).
A. Clearly, you like the looks of the hyphen, so I'd say go for it, although Chicago style is to close up the prefix in all those cases.
Q. Could you tell me the correct way to pluralize an acronym when it is the first instance and the definition that appears before the acronym is plural? Here is an example and the two options that have been suggested to me: configuration items (CIs), or configuration items (CI)s. I think the first because it looks better, but others disagree.
A. Yes, the first is the conventional way to make an acronym plural; the second is (forgive me) bizarre.
Q. When forming the possessive for a proper noun rendered with initialism, should I use ’s, or, because the last word rendered by the initialism is “Services,” should I treat it as a noun plural in form but singular in meaning, and add the apostrophe only? My instinct is to write “FIS's customers” because, plural services or no, FIS is one company. However, on that company's website I see that they form the possessive with the apostrophe only: “FIS' competitive edge.” Thank you for any advice.
A. Your instincts are right: when you are working with initialisms, the trick is to ignore what the letters stand for. In your case, you are no longer talking about Friendly and Ineffectual Services' customers; you're talking about FIS's customers.
October Q&A
Q. Regarding em dashes, does CMOS continue to unequivocally oppose putting spaces before and after em dashes in typography? The font style on this website leaves at least a tiny space surrounding the em dash. Would it be CMOS heresy for me to stretch that space?
A. “Heresy” is a bit strong. Even our own publications sometimes play with spacing for display purposes, and some typefaces impose more space than others. In this matter, as in most style matters, if Chicago’s preferences don’t suit your purposes, work around them. We won’t be offended.
Q. Two colleagues and I are disagreeing at work about the formatting of the text above vertical lists. The introductory element is often a few words, and it is usually not a complete grammatical sentence, yet we end the introductory element with a colon. One woman declared that this was wrong and that we should fix thousands of screens in hundreds of lessons by either rewriting the introductory element as a complete sentence or removing the colon. What do you think?
A. In new text, I would edit as your colleague suggests, but since it sounds like a costly and time-consuming process for you to change the ones you already have in place, you might compromise by replacing the offending intros only as you add new lessons or revise old ones.
Q. Our (I believe overzealous) rights manager has decreed that when trademarked terms are used in running text in our fiction and nonfiction books, they must be written in all caps, since this is what the International Trademark Association recommends. I argue that Chicago allows trademarks (used only when a generic term cannot be substituted) to be initial-capped only.
A. INTA in fact tolerates the use of initial caps (see their “Information and Publishing” FAQ at http://www.inta.org). Not only does it look suspicious to use all caps (readers will assume you are promoting the product), but it’s not always feasible to research and duplicate all the typographic variations that trademarked names involve. Chicago prefers initial caps.
Q. I notice confusion in publication in regard to whether a space should precede and/or follow relation signs. My suspicion is that it is <10 km but p < .001.
A. That’s right: there is no space after a relation sign when it acts as a modifier (e.g., for all quantities <10 km), but there is space on both sides when it acts as a verb (e.g., for all quantities such that p < .001).
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!
A. The idiom is “happy medium,” but I like the image of commuters taking refuge from road rage on the happy median. See Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?110708.
Q. I’m seeing this particular use of hyphens: low-to-moderate income families. I don’t think it’s correct, but it’s becoming so common that I’m beginning to wonder if I missed something.
A. Chicago style would render this phrase as “low- to moderate-income families,” but this level of hyphen usage is subtle enough that it’s not surprising that you don’t find it consistently applied.
Q. I have written a novel and am currently working with an editor, and we have different attitudes toward the use of the semicolon. According to my editor I have used semicolons copiously, but I have done so in order to achieve the connection of thoughts and ideas that are related but not so closely that they require a comma, and in order to avoid a series of the staccatolike sentences that so much current literature is subject to. Is this acceptable in today’s modern fiction?
A. Although an editor should respect a writer’s voice and style, a writer doesn’t always realize how her voice comes across after it passes through the wickets of punctuation. There should be collaboration here. Your editor should consider each semicolon before nixing it, rather than wipe them all out on principle alone. You should acknowledge that a surfeit of semicolons can distract any reader who sees it as a writing tic; it can also be unsightly on the page, depending on the typeface. Here’s an idea: Find a passage where semicolons dominate and ask someone to read it out loud. Then replace the semicolons with commas or periods and ask someone else to read it to you. See whether you hear a difference. It might help you determine the best course.
Q. Can a semicolon ever accompany an exclamation point? I’m not at liberty to share the actual sentence, but here’s an analogous one of my own creation: The missing cookies could mean one of several things: (1) Jane had gotten hungry while she was studying; (2) John had come by and helped himself—that moocher!; (3) I was snacking in my sleep again. I’ve solved the problem in this case by deleting the em dash and enclosing “that moocher!” in parentheses, but I’m wondering what the rule is.
A. I think your solution is a good one; a semicolon after an exclamation point wouldn’t wash in this department. (P.S. We’re dying to know what that secret sentence could be.)
Q. I am doing some developmental editing on a book about Elvis and East Tupelo, Mississippi. The author has gathered her information from a variety of sources, including firsthand interviews. Footnotes and a bibliography will not work with the format. How do we acknowledge sources such as websites or newspapers?
A. If you absolutely can’t have notes (not even endnotes? or a brief section called “Sources”?), then you have to write the sources into the text. That could get ugly. It’s one reason notes were invented.
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.”
A. An inflexible approach to language rarely results in good prose. As it happens, the Latin roots of protest do not imply opposition ( pro means “for” or “in favor of”), although English usage has evolved to favor that meaning. Your own counterexample features the noun protest, but you can point your colleague to Webster’s Third International Dictionary, whose definition of the verb protest includes the example “protesting against the morals of the time.”
Q. Why do you continue to support the nonpossessive apostrophe, as in CD’s, MBA’s? It serves no function whatsoever.
A. Actually, Chicago generally omits the apostrophe in the plurals of initialisms, while acknowledging its usefulness in some cases, such as to distinguish As from A’s . (Not that punctuation is necessarily logical, you know; sometimes it is simply based on convention.)
Q. I need help on how it would be easier to make a bibliography easier.
A. You could keep it short. You could find the references online and copy and paste them in so you don’t have to type them. You could buy some software that helps format bibliographies. You could ask your mom to do it.
