Q. Are phrases like “The more the merrier” and “The bigger the better” sentences, despite not having a verb?

A. In CMOS 6.50, on commas with “the more,” “the less,” and the like, you’ll find one of those as an example that illustrates when a comma is unnecessary: “The more the merrier.”

As you suggest, that’s a phrase. But when it’s standing alone like that (with an initial capital and a terminal period), it functions as a type of sentence—one that’s elliptical, meaning that one or more words have been left unstated but will be understood by readers, sometimes with the help of context. The adjective elliptical comes from the Greek verb elleipein, “to leave out,” as does the noun ellipsis, which can refer either to an omission of words or to the series of dots (. . .) that can mark such an omission.

If you supply the missing words in your two examples (as we’ve done below, choosing a generic reading for both), it will be clearer that they work as complete sentences, though with some inversion:

The more there is, the merrier it will be. (= It will be merrier to the degree that there is more.)

The bigger it is, the better it will be. (= It will be better to the degree that it is bigger.)

Note the commas, which become necessary when words like the ones underlined above are expressed rather than implied: “The more people we invite to our grammar party, the merrier it will be.”

For the related phenomenon of elliptical sentences like Why? and Yes, see CMOS 5.101. For ellipses (the dots), see 12.59–69.

Q. Is the usage of “kindly” in “We would like to kindly ask you . . .” or “This is to kindly remind you to . . .” correct? My understanding is that “kindly” sounds rather rude here, as we are describing ourselves as kind and generous.

A. According to the entry for “kindly” in Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (Oxford, 2022), using that word to refer to the person making the request instead of simply using it like please is a “linguistic misstep,” one that’s typical of “airlinese”—as in “We kindly ask you to take your seats” instead of “Kindly take your seats.”

Misstep or not, it can be rude to praise oneself, as you suggest, so we agree that it’s best to avoid kindly except as a substitute for please. Your sentences could be revised as follows:

We would like to kindly ask you . . .
becomes
Kindly . . .

This is to kindly remind you to . . .
becomes
Please remember to . . .

(To any fans of airlinese out there, kindly accept our most humble apologies for this answer.)

Q. I’m struggling over what to do with this sentence: “The issue was not only the lack of funding for the new sports center, it was also about who gets to participate in city government.” I was told that this is a comma splice and that I should use a semicolon instead, but doesn’t the part before the comma depend on what follows the comma, making the comma the right choice? Please help!

A. That first part is in fact an independent rather than a dependent clause, which may be easier to see if you add a sentence between the two parts of your example:

The issue was not only the lack of funding for the new sports center. Besides, that was old news. It was also about who gets to participate in city government.

But a semicolon can seem unnecessarily formal, and a period might be too abrupt. If you’d prefer not to use either of those, and you’re worried about being accused of comma splicing (though your original sentence is a borderline case and perfectly acceptable for most types of writing), then consider omitting the second subject and adding but to make a compound predicate:

The issue was not only the lack of funding for the new sports center but also who gets to participate in city government.

(Note that simply adding but to your original example, after the comma, might seem like an option, but the result would be awkward.)

See also CMOS 6.49, on the use of commas with sentences that feature correlative conjunctions of the type not . . . but and not only . . . but also.

Q. Is it mandatory to use a person’s full name the first time it is mentioned in the body of the text, and to use only the last name in subsequent mentions?

A. For most people with a first and a last name, it’s usually best to do what you suggest as a courtesy to your readers. But names come in so many varieties that we tend to avoid making absolute rules about them. For example, a passing mention of Shakespeare’s Hamlet wouldn’t need to include “William.” And there are those who have only one name, like Aristotle, or who are known by one name, like Elizabeth I (who is only sometimes referred to as Elizabeth Tudor, as in studies that highlight the Tudor dynasty and its lineage).

If you’re using author-date citation style, there’s another exception to consider: When citing an article or other source in parentheses, you’d normally include only the author’s last name even if that author hasn’t been mentioned elsewhere in the text: (Smith 2024). Interested readers can go to the corresponding entry in the reference list for the full form of the name. But if you’re referring to the author rather than the work (in what is sometimes called a narrative citation), it’s normally best to include the first name at first mention: “According to Ivy Smith (2024), . . . Smith, however, does not . . .”

For the difference between “Author (Year),” which refers to a person, and “(Author Year),” which refers to a work, see CMOS 13.122.

Q. I am writing a review of an exhibition I went to see. I am briefly quoting the titles of sections from the exhibition that were written on the walls and I am not sure how to cite them. I also don’t know if they are only needed in footnotes or in a bibliography as well. I have five and they are all from the same exhibition.

A. In Chicago style, you don’t need to formally cite words written on walls or on labels or cards or elsewhere at an art exhibition. Assuming you’ve supplied full details for the exhibition itself (as in the text or in a note; a bibliography entry is usually unnecessary for live events, though you may list an exhibition catalog there), and assuming also that your text makes it clear that the words are part of that exhibition, you are free to quote section titles and the like without additional citations.

You can also usually discuss specific works of art that are featured in the exhibition without additional citations, as long as you’ve identified these works sufficiently in your text (usually by the name of the creator and a title or description, at the very least). But if you’re a student, check with your instructor, who may expect you to cite individual artworks in your notes or to list them in a bibliography, or both. For examples, see CMOS 14.133. For citing exhibition catalogs, see 14.134. For titles of artworks and exhibitions, see 8.200 and 8.204.

Q. Hi, I was wondering if you could clarify whether a DOI is required for citations of print sources when one is available.

A. According to CMOS 13.14, authors don’t need to record DOIs for print resources “unless their publisher or discipline requires it.” And because most readers will assume that a DOI in a citation means you’re referring to something online, it’s generally best not to include one for a work you consulted in print unless you’ve also consulted the online version. (It’s unlikely that a source that’s available only in print will have a DOI.)

Q. Per paragraph 7.92 in CMOS, some compound adjectives keep a hyphen even after a noun, including compounds with “ill” (also covered under “ill” in the hyphenation table). For example, we could be correct in writing this: “The scene was ill-described.” In cases where the compound is not in play, I assume we stick to dropping the hyphen, since we’re now working with just an adverb + verb. For example: “Gruesome ill described the scene.” Is this correct? I suspect I’m overthinking things. (Revising the sentence beyond mechanical correctness is out of the question in this client’s case.)

A. Though CMOS doesn’t cover this specific case, common sense does suggest that you wouldn’t need a hyphen when an adverb is paired with a past participle used as a verb rather than as an adjective. You could try substituting a different adverb for ill to test this hunch: “Gruesome now described the scene.” A hyphen would be out of place there.

But the wording in your sentence is unusual—ill is rarely paired with verbs other than afford, treat, or use—so hyphenation might be helpful. The expression ill afford is in Merriam-Webster without a hyphen, but that phrase generally has only one form: can (or could) ill afford. By contrast, both ill-treat and ill-use are entered as hyphenated verbs, giving you a couple of models to follow.

Verdict? A hyphen in your example, though not strictly required (see also CMOS 7.96, sec. 2, under “phrases, verbal”), may help clarify that ill belongs with the verb. You could add one (“Gruesome ill-described the scene”) unless your client prefers otherwise.

Q. In Spanish text, titles of books are set in sentence case, but should they also be set in italics? And how about titles of book series and the like?

A. If you’re applying Chicago style, and often even if you’re not, book titles are italicized in Spanish-language contexts, whereas series titles are usually in roman (regular) type—both as they would be in English.

So, whether your text is in Spanish or English, you would refer to The Chicago Manual of Style (note the title case, usually retained for English titles in Spanish-language contexts) but el (or “the” in English contexts) Manual de estilo Chicago-Deusto (a version of CMOS adapted for Spanish and published in 2013 by the University of Deusto, or Universidad de Deusto, in partnership with the University of Chicago Press; as with books in English, an initial article isn’t always part of the title).

As for a book series, you would refer to (for example) Bonsái (Editorial Anagrama, 2006), a novel by Alejandro Zambra published as part of the series Narrativas hispánicas. Again, these novel and series titles would be treated the same whether your text is in English or Spanish. Titles of series, though, occasionally appear in title case, which is how names of periodicals and publishers are usually treated (e.g., the journal Revista Mexicana de Sociología or the publisher Fondo de Cultura Económica). When in doubt, follow the usage in the source.

For more guidance, consult Chicago-Deusto. Additional resources are available online from the Real Academia Española, including the freely accessible Libro de estilo de la lengua española (a Spanish stylebook first published in 2018); in that guide, see “Clase de letra” (on styling text), and especially “Cursiva demarcativa para delimitar expresiones denominativas” (on italics for titles of books and the like).

In CMOS, see paragraphs 11.67–76. For the titles of book series, which are sometimes in italics, see 8.178.

Q. What is the rule on hyphenating multiple colors? For example, it would be “a black-and-white photo,” but you never see any other color combinations hyphenated (like “a pink-and-yellow scarf”).

A. Putting something in black and white has been a thing for centuries; according to Merriam-Webster, the noun phrase black and white to mean writing or print dates to 1569. Once color photography became popular, the adjective black-and-white—with hyphens—was probably inevitable.

A pink-and-yellow scarf, on the other hand, or one that’s red and white or blue and green or any other combination you can think of? Those are arbitrary combinations. But you should hyphenate any one of them as a preceding modifier regardless (as at the start of this paragraph), at least if you’re following Chicago style. Hyphens will make it more obvious that you aren’t referring, for example, to a pink and a yellow scarf.

This issue is not, however, black and white. For more on this subject (including why we’ve left the hyphens out of black and white in the first sentence of this paragraph), see “Compound Modifiers After a Noun: A Postpositive Dilemma,” at CMOS Shop Talk.

Q. I’m reviewing an academic research paper in which the authors describe their process and their findings in the present tense. “We evaluate . . . We analyze . . . We review.” Obviously, these actions have already taken place, so I lean toward changing the sentences to past tense. But perhaps it’s acceptable to use the present tense in academic research, similar to the use of historical present tense in literature. Please help!

A. The historical present can be a reasonable choice for things that can be consulted by others, starting with the paper itself. For example, “In this report, we evaluate three different theories of . . .” Other sources can likewise be referred to in this way: “Smith (2021) argues that . . .”

But for actions as opposed to text, a form of past tense is usually best: “We reviewed the flight logs at five major international airports . . .” The past tense is also usually best when referring to something as predating something else: “In a previous paper, Smith (2020) argued for . . .” Or, “In previous papers, Smith (2018, 2020) has argued for . . .”

If in doubt, default to a form of the past tense, which would work well in any of the examples in this answer except for the first (though you could switch to past if, for example, you were to change “In” to “For”: “For this report, we evaluated . . .”). But if the paper is going to be published in a journal or with a specific publisher, ask that journal or publisher about any preferences related to verb tenses; also look at recently published articles in your field.

Q. I am writing a poem with the phrase “marine helicopters”: “In the silvery drizzle, / a pair of Marine helicopters / flying low on maneuvers . . .” These are indeed helicopters of the United States Marine Corps. Would “marine” or “Marine” be correct in this circumstance?

A. In documents published by or for the US Marines, it’s “Marine,” with a capital M, whether the term is singular or plural and regardless of the part of speech. But outside the Marine Corps (and unless the focus of the text is the US military), the word “marine,” like “navy” or “naval,” can usually be lowercased when used by itself as a noun (“a marine,” “the marines”) or adjective (“a marine helicopter”).

In poetry, you have options. If you want to nudge your readers toward interpreting that line as referring to the US Marines, then a capital M is probably best. But if you’d like to retain a note of ambiguity, leaving the term more open to evoking the colors of the sea and the like, you could go with a lowercase m. That’s up to you.

See also CMOS 8.113, which treats capitalization conventions for armies, battalions, and the like, including the US Marines. For “US” (normally spelled without periods in Chicago style), see 10.4 and 10.37.

Q. I’m looking for confirmation on how to capitalize a word in a title that has a portion of the word in parentheses—e.g., Peter Adey, “If Mobility Is Everything Then It Is Nothing: Towards a Relational Politics of (Im)mobilities.” Is “(Im)mobilities” OK as is, rather than “(Im)Mobilities” (which looks odd to me)? Thanks!

A. If something looks odd to you, there’s a chance it will look odd to others (which is why it’s a good idea to take any objection to something in your work seriously, even if you end up keeping things as is). In case it helps, we think the version with the capital M looks weird, so as far as we’re concerned, your hunch is right: “(Im)mobilities” is the way to go.

And don’t be misled by the Chicago citation generated via the “Cite this article” link at the Taylor & Francis page for the Adey article. It’s clear that the initial caps in the article title in that author-date citation have been applied automatically (overriding the lowercase in the original title for “is” and “it” but going a step too far next to the parenthesis).