Q. Greetings from New Zealand. May I please ask you what is the plural of “thesis”
and whether this word is of Latin or Greek origin? Many thanks.
A. For this sort of thing, we at the University of Chicago Press must rely on the lexicographers. The plural, according to both
Webster’s tenth and American Heritage, is “theses.” As for origin, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “thesis” was
[o]riginally and properly, according to ancient writers, [t]he setting down of the foot or lowering of the hand in beating
time, and hence (as marked by this) the stress or ictus; the stressed syllable of a foot in a verse; a stressed note in music.
Among the ancient writers offered as proof are the authors of Greek fragments studied by Rudolf Westphal in his Die Fragmente und die Lehrsätze der griechischen Rhythmiker from 1861. Later Latin writers inverted this meaning, but the one that has generally survived today is the setting down,
not of the foot, but of a proposition. So Greek it is.
Q. My boyfriend and I are having a battle royal over the use of apostrophes in plural names. In his PhD dissertation he repeatedly
refers to a family by the name of Wallace. When he refers to them in the plural, he insists that the correct form is “the
Wallace’s,” which seems entirely incorrect to me. I hold that it should be “the
Wallaces,” just like “the McDonalds” or “the
McPartlands” or “the DeVitos.” He is backing up his position
with the example “the G.I.s,” which he insists should be pluralized as “the
G.I.’s.” Please help. This is ruining our dinner conversation!
A. Usually in such arguments, the woman is right. Yours is no exception. The plural of names of persons and other capitalized
nouns is usually formed with the addition of s or es. An apostrophe is never used to form the plural of family names. Write “the Wallaces,”
“the Joneses,” the “Jordans,” etc.
See paragraph 7.8 of the sixteenth edition of CMOS for the full statement of the applicable rule. As for G.I., we would write GI (no periods), the plural of which we’d write as GIs. See 10.4 and 7.14.
[reply from Q.]: Ohhhh thanks!!!! I can’t wait to show this to [my boyfriend].
Q. I’ve polled all the editors in the building on this, plus checked your manual. Other than rewriting
the sentence entirely so it wouldn’t matter if we had “is”
or “are,” no one is quite sure how to handle it. I hope you can help, wish this
were a chat room. :) Is a term like “award(s)” plural or singular? To me, since
the reader will “read” it as plural, it should be plural, but that’s
the advertising copy editor in me. As for grammatical correctness, I don’t really know if it’s
a plural word or not, since technically the “s” is only inferred, right?
A. A term ending in “(s)” is both plural and singular. If you must use such a device
(and it can be a useful shorthand), you have to be prepared to adjust the surrounding context as necessary: for example, “the
award(s) is (are) accounted for.” A parenthetical plural verb must correspond to the parenthetical ending.
But that’s an awkward example. In general, avoid such shorthand unless it can be used simply and effectively,
as in the following example:
Place an “about the author(s)” statement on the copyright page (usually page
iv).
Q. I am wondering if you could clarify the proper usage associated with names of sports teams and other such organizations where
the name does not clearly end in a plural form. I offer as examples the NBA’s Miami Heat and Orlando
Magic or the NHL’s Tampa Bay Lightning. I think the names ought to be considered plural—for
example, “The Tampa Bay Lightning have won five of their last six games against the Washington Capitals.”
On page D1 of the Washington Post from November 15, 2003, in contrast, a story began with the following sentence: “The Miami Heat seemed
to do everything it could to hand Friday night’s game to Washington.” . . .
Perhaps the best solution is just to use the city name in such cases.
A. Your objection to the sentence in the Washington Post seems reasonable. Most NBA and NHL teams have plural names. Moreover, it is in the nature of sports that these teams are
discussed in opposition to each other. It does seem odd to have to treat one team as a plural and another as singular, especially
in the same context. When it is not practical or desirable to use just the city name (Washington hopes to forget the last two seasons; Miami is likewise hoping for a fresh perspective), I would be inclined to make an exception for singular team names. Such an exception—though much less
common in American than in British English—is more or less sanctioned by the usage note in American Heritage (4th ed., 2000, s.v. “collective noun”), which notes that “a
collective noun [also called “mass noun” or “noncount noun”]
. . . takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered
as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves.” See paragraph 5.8 in CMOS for more on this subject.
Q. Since the late 1980s, when I got my first copy of CMOS, I have understood that verbs associated with a noun used to group plural items should correspond with the singular, grouping
noun. For example, “A growing number of reports has revealed . . .”
Microsoft Word, however, keeps indicating a grammatical error when I follow this rule and was placated when I changed “has”
to “have” in the above example. Can you please clarify who is right? Is it I or
the copyeditors consulted by Bill Gates?
A. Microsoft’s grammar-checking software happens to be right in this case. Number as a collective noun takes a singular or plural verb depending on the article (definite the or indefinite a) that precedes it:
The number of pizzas ordered this year has doubled.
but
A number of studies have shown that stuffing a pizza with spinach triples the edibility of that sinewy vegetable.
Most collective nouns do tend to be invariably singular in American English. Those that, like number, vary according to circumstance include words like percentage and any fraction—one-third (or a third), one-half (or half), two-thirds, etc. Like number, these take a singular verb when preceded by the (common for percentage but rare for fractions). Otherwise, the verb agrees with the number of the noun in any prepositional phrase that follows:
After today’s enormously stressful workshop, a third of the attendees have decided to skip the entrée,
preferring instead to dine on the wine.
but
Unfortunately, seven-eighths of last year’s vintage was spoiled.
Q. Why do people (well-educated, high-profile people) constantly use “e-mails” when
referring to more than one e-mail? The fact that the communication has been sent electronically shouldn’t
affect proper usage. Isn’t it wrong to use the term “e-mails”
instead of “e-mail”? We never say “mails”
for multiple pieces of mail; we say “mail.” I’ve been told
that I’m just too picky, but I believe that “e-mail” covers
both singular and plural, same as deer, moose, fish, etc. This is getting as annoying as “that is so
fun.” Our language is going downhill. Why must we lower our usage standards to meet the lowest common
denominator?
A. “E-mail” and “mail” aren’t
exactly parallel in usage. We don’t say “I received six mail today.”
We say “letters” or “pieces of mail.”
Since “e-mail messages” is a few syllables longer than we generally tolerate in
computerspeak, the coinage of “e-mails” seems to perform a useful function. As
for language going downhill, we prefer to believe that it is constantly evolving to meet our needs. (Otherwise, we would have
to be grumpy all the time.)
Q. When I was working on my graduate degree in English, I was told by a professor that the rule had changed for plurals of numbers
(written as numbers) and letters (3s rather than 3’s or As rather than A’s). For
the past 15 years I have been teaching it that way. Another colleague just recently saw that rule change somewhere online.
Our new textbooks, however, do not teach it that way. We are currently working on a new handbook and would like to know if
the rule has been changed or not. Thanks.
A. Chicago style omits the apostrophe, but the thing about style is, there is no single great arbiter who makes rules that everyone
follows. Different houses use different styles. Following a particular style allows a person to be consistent within a given
document, but it really doesn’t matter which style you choose.
Q. When using the plural of “ad,” i.e., “ad’s,”
is it incorrect to use the apostrophe? The three-letter string “ads” just looks
so wrong when typesetting it. Would appreciate your guidance.
A. “Ad” is just a regular word, and the plural “ads”
is also regular, so there’s no need to mess with it. Plurals almost never take an apostrophe. Chicago
style uses an apostrophe for the plural of lowercase single letters (x’s and o’s), but for little else (for instance, we write “dos and don’ts”).
Please see CMOS 7.14 and 7.59–61 for more examples and exceptions.
Q. The plural of “curriculum” is “curricula.”
Why does the dictionary list “symposiums” as an acceptable plural for “symposium”?
And does the rule differ for every plural of words ending in -um?
A. “Curricula” is the plural in Latin. In American English, the plural is “curriculums.”
Both are correct, although in academic writing, there is a tradition of using the Latin plurals. Chicago editors follow Webster’s 11th Collegiate when forming plurals of adopted words, but please see CMOS 7.6.
Q. What is the correct ending (singular or plural) to this sentence? This moving, musical journey inspires “drummers”
of all ages to follow the beat in their heart. Is it hearts? Is it beats and hearts? Is it just beat and heart? This is driving
me insane! Please help!
A. Since the drummers don’t share a single heart, you’re definitely going to need
a plural of that. For “beat,” the question is whether you want it to mean literal
beats of the heart, or a more abstract beating akin to music. (E.g., we say “follow the beat”
when teaching music, not “follow the beats.”) You could choose either. They have
slightly different meanings, but I think you probably need the singular.
Chicago Style Q&A: New Questions and Answers
