Q. Can you distinguish when a single quotation mark is used versus a double quotation mark? I’m not referring
to quotes within quotes, but about the use of single quotation marks closer to linguistic uses. I see both single and double
quotation marks in instances seemingly for special meaning but not limited to linguistics. (That also seemingly will drive
whether a comma is placed inside or outside the closing single quotation mark.)
A. For nonspecialist texts, Chicago recommends double quotation marks for everything except quotations within quotations. The
comma or period goes inside.
Q. When quoting statutory material, is it appropriate to substitute ellipses points in for semicolons that end the “line”
of a statutory clause? For instance, suppose a statutory clause reads “(i) Procedures involving animals
will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals;”, and this is the end of the line
(that is, the next line starts with “(ii)”). In this situation, if one quotes
the line itself, should one end it with a period, ellipses points, or maybe even a bracketed period?
A. CMOS would recommend that you quote your example as follows: “Procedures involving animals will avoid or
minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals.” The function of the semicolon, out of context,
becomes irrelevant, and there is no need to use ellipses or to bracket the period. Within a sentence, the quotation would
look like this:
The relevant clause states that “[p]rocedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress,
and pain to the animals,” and this organization has done everything in its power to follow suit.
Note that the “p” has been lowercased because grammar requires it but placed in
brackets in deference to the original text. CMOS recommends doing this for all legal works and textual criticism. But the end punctuation is a different matter here, and
in the example above a comma is required.
Q. The following is a two-part quotation mark question: Is a quotation nested within a separate quotation of double quotes recognized
by an additional set of double quotes? Or is the quotation in question enclosed by single quotes? If my question hasn’t
confused you, perhaps my example will. The court transcript detailed Jack’s recollection of that fateful
day. Jack took the stand and began his testimony. “Your honor, I distinctly remember Jill saying to
me, “Jack, I will never climb that hill. Furthermore, what good is a pail of water?””
Please advise.
A. Quotation marks alternate, as follows: quotations within quotations are single, quotations within quotations within quotations
are double, quotations within quotations within quotations within quotations are single, etc.
He said, “I have one request: never say ‘never say “never” ’
again.”
I hope this is clear enough. For more information, start with CMOS 16, paragraph 13.28.
Q. In paragraph 13.7, in the section on permissible changes to quotations, CMOS says, “Obvious typographic errors may be corrected silently (without comment or sic) unless the passage quoted is from an older work or a manuscript source where idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved.”
Earlier in the passage, CMOS states that direct quotes must reproduce exactly not only the wording but the spelling, capitalization, and internal punctuation
of the original. It does not mention italicizing. When I’ve edited quotes or extracts from older texts,
I’ve, as a rule, reproduced pretty much “everything” as
it is in the older text. I am editing a book now with numerous quotes from seventeenth-century books or letters, referencing
ships. Before launching forth, thought I would double check. Seems ship names were not italicized back then. My thought is
to leave as they are in the original—as roman. That is, do not italicize ship names in the quotes or
extracts. Would this be correct?
A. In addition to spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, I’d also preserve the distinction in the
original between italic and roman type. It is certainly necessary to retain any italics in quoted text that are there for
reasons of emphasis, but it’s also probably best to retain italics used for other reasons and, by the
same token, refrain from adding italics (you can of course add italics within a quotation for the purposes of your own emphasis,
as long as you clearly indicate where you’ve done this with a bracketed phrase such as “emphasis
added”). But the line is not always a clearly etched one. You need not necessarily italicize a quoted
passage that’s been presented entirely in italic type, for example. And if you quote a subhead that’s
been italicized in the original source for reasons of design, you can certainly present it in roman. Just make sure that whatever
you do, do not obscure the meaning of the original passage.
Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation marks, but do the British do it that way too???
A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see paragraph 6.9), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original
material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best
with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)
Q. I am currently editing a lengthy manuscript made up almost entirely of quotations made by a dead person to a living person.
The living person is what is known as a “channeler.” Since the living person is
quoting what the dead person tells her, how do I handle the quotes? The dead person is of such stature that giving the quotes
to the living person does not seem right. Any help you can give me is much appreciated.
A. If you want to represent the dead person as truly speaking through the channeler, then by all means quote the dead person
as if he or she is physically speaking, even if it is the living person’s voice box that is being used
for turning spirit or thought into physical vibrations in the air. If you do this well, it will be clear enough what is going
on (though you may want to outline your methods in an introductory paragraph). I think that it would be more awkward to keep
having to resort to something like “the channeler, speaking the voice of the dead person, then said. . . .”
You might consider some alternative approaches. The rather convoluted narrative voices in Faulkner’s
Absalom, Absalom! were differentiated in a variety of ways, most of them verbal, but some of them typographical. For example, you might decide
to use unquoted italic type for everything that the dead person says through the channeler—or for everything
that the dead person does not say. Whatever approach you use, try to maximize the transparency with which different voices
can be distinguished. (And for more ideas, see CMOS 16, paragraphs 13.37–43, which include discussions of unspoken and indirect discourse.)
Q. I am working on a book about writing. May I quote briefly from the published work of other writers, with full attribution?
By “briefly,” I mean no more than two sentences. Thank you.
A. Yes, you may. But if you are writing a book about writing, you should run to the nearest library or bookstore and read as much as you can on the complex matters of documentation and permissions.
It’s your responsibility. If you goof up in this regard, at best no agent or editor will take you seriously;
at worst, you could end up in legal trouble.
Q. In quoting historical letters or correspondence, what is the current accepted practice as far as leaving mistakes or clarifying
mistakes for modern readers? Is it dependent on the work?
A. In scholarly publishing, corrections must be acknowledged, either with the use of interpolations in square brackets or explanations
in the notes. Using [ sic] to note that an error occurred in the original is also conventional. Some minor errors or typos may be corrected without
acknowledgment. All this requires considerable editorial judgment. Please see CMOS 13.4, 13.7, and 13.59 for more guidance.
Q. Dear CMOS, I’m proofreading a reissue of a children’s mystery novel. The following appears
in the original edition: “I said don’t move.” Is this styled
and punctuated correctly? I feel I should recast it to “I said, ‘Don’t
move.’ ” But something about the brevity of the command “don’t
move” makes me waver and want to leave it as is (or find another punctuation style), treating the line
as one might treat “I said no.” I can’t seem to wrap my
head around this. Help! Many thanks.
A. Yes, the more simple punctuation is appropriate here. The strictly correct punctuation and capping might seem pedantic in
that context.
Q. We do a lot of excerpts from articles and books at my job. But folks here are unhappy because they cannot distinguish between
ellipses that existed in the originals and ones that we have inserted to indicate missing material. I can find no mention
of how to deal with this quandary in The Chicago Manual of Style. Please help—many reprints lie ahead!
A. If you’re going to mix original and editorial ellipses, you should alert the reader that you’re
doing it, either up front or in a footnote at the first occurrence. Explain that you will put editorial dots (as opposed to
original ones) in square brackets [ . . . ], or devise some other system that makes
sense to you and your colleagues. For instance, you could insert “[Ellipsis in original.]”
in a note or in the text at the end of the sentence in question, although this will become annoying if there are many such
instances.
Chicago Style Q&A: New Questions and Answers
