CMOS FAQ Questions http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/ Latest CMOS FAQ Questions with links to the answers en-us Mon, 30 May 2016 05:00:00 GMT 60 http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/faq0111.html Q. How does one, using a word processor, make an em dash/en dash distinguishable from a hyphen? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>How does one, using a word processor, make an em dash/en dash distinguishable from a hyphen?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:28:58 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/ManuscriptPreparation/faq0170.html Q. I’m proofreading a manuscript and would like to know what the rule is for formatting a drop initial cap if the remaining text is in italics because it’s an exhibition title. The title is in italics, but the starting letter is a drop cap and is in roman. Is that OK, or should the cap be in italics as well? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>I&rsquo;m proofreading a manuscript and would like to know what the rule is for formatting a drop initial cap if the remaining text is in italics because it&rsquo;s an exhibition title. The title is in italics, but the starting letter is a drop cap and is in roman. Is that OK, or should the cap be in italics as well?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:27:55 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0063.html Q. The acronym NVM stands for “non-volatile memory.” The acronym NVMe stands for NVM Express. Unfortunately, the first mention of NVMe shows up before the first mention of NVM. This means I am first writing “NVM Express (NVMe).” I then later write “non-volatile memory (NVM).” If I were to define the first mention of NVMe as “Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe),” would that mean I would not define the first mention of NVM as “non-volatile memory (NVM)” because NVM has already been defined as part of another acronym? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>The acronym NVM stands for &ldquo;non-volatile memory.&rdquo; The acronym NVMe stands for NVM Express. Unfortunately, the first mention of NVMe shows up before the first mention of NVM. This means I am first writing &ldquo;NVM Express (NVMe).&rdquo; I then later write &ldquo;non-volatile memory (NVM).&rdquo; If I were to define the first mention of NVMe as &ldquo;Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe),&rdquo; would that mean I would not define the first mention of NVM as &ldquo;non-volatile memory (NVM)&rdquo; because NVM has already been defined as part of another acronym?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:26:56 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Documentation/faq0287.html Q. I found a nice comment written in a book by the last owner. Have no idea who that was, but the words are good. How do I cite this? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>I found a nice comment written in a book by the last owner. Have no idea who that was, but the words are good. How do I cite this?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:25:53 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0069.html Q. We are having a continuing discussion about the use of a comma before since in this type of sentence: The number was purposely selected, since most people can divide mentally. My understanding is that if the subordinate clause follows the main clause, no comma precedes the conjunction; however, I saw the following sentence in the Q&A and am now confused. “Be aware, however, that the figures may depart from Chicago style in some details, since they are taken from actual manuscripts and published books or journals.” <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>We are having a continuing discussion about the use of a comma before <em>since</em> in this type of sentence: The number was purposely selected, since most people can divide mentally. My understanding is that if the subordinate clause follows the main clause, no comma precedes the conjunction; however, I saw the following sentence in the Q&amp;A and am now confused. &ldquo;Be aware, however, that the figures may depart from Chicago style in some details, since they are taken from actual manuscripts and published books or journals.&rdquo;</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:25:01 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0068.html Q. In the technical writing I do it is common to reduce the full name of a company, after first mention, to a shorter version, usually dropping the Inc. or LLC or what have you. For example: “Johnson Associates, Inc. (Johnson), is the proponent of this project.” Is it correct to have a comma after the parenthesis? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>In the technical writing I do it is common to reduce the full name of a company, after first mention, to a shorter version, usually dropping the <em>Inc.</em> or <em>LLC</em> or what have you. For example: &ldquo;Johnson Associates, Inc. (Johnson), is the proponent of this project.&rdquo; Is it correct to have a comma after the parenthesis?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:24:02 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/ManuscriptPreparation/faq0169.html Q. A company I work for advocates two levels of headings in most reports/articles: a stand-alone boldface head (an A head) and a boldface run-in head (a C head). The style guide says that when an extra head is needed, a B head (stand-alone small caps) should be employed between the A and C heads. Some editors believe that when the B head is needed, it can be used in only some sections of a report/article, arguing that the B heads are an intermediary organizational structure that can be useful in a particularly complex section, but this does not mean that they are required—or even appropriate—in sections with simpler construction. By this logic, some sections within a report/article would have an A-B-C heading structure and other sections within that same report/article would have an A-C heading structure. Other editors think that once the B head is used, all secondary-level headings in that report should be B heads. What do you advise? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>A company I work for advocates two levels of headings in most reports/articles: a stand-alone boldface head (an A head) and a boldface run-in head (a C head). The style guide says that when an extra head is needed, a B head (stand-alone small caps) should be employed between the A and C heads. Some editors believe that when the B head is needed, it can be used in only some sections of a report/article, arguing that the B heads are an intermediary organizational structure that can be useful in a particularly complex section, but this does not mean that they are required&mdash;or even appropriate&mdash;in sections with simpler construction. By this logic, some sections within a report/article would have an A-B-C heading structure and other sections within that same report/article would have an A-C heading structure. Other editors think that once the B head is used, all secondary-level headings in that report should be B heads. What do you advise?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:14:40 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/NoneoftheAbove/faq0031.html Q. Oh dear, is it really true that Merriam-Webster Dictionary says you can break the word recommendation after the c? I am in Cuba and don’t have M-W handy, but it seems very odd. <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>Oh dear, is it really true that <em>Merriam-Webster Dictionary</em> says you can break the word <em>recommendation</em> after the <em>c</em>? I am in Cuba and don&rsquo;t have <em>M-W</em> handy, but it seems very odd.</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:13:32 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Capitalization/faq0057.html Q. CMOS 13.7 recommends silently correcting typographic errors while retaining capitalization of older works. I am writing a book with numerous quotations from archival sources from the nineteenth century. Does that count as old? These sources seem to have idiosyncratic rules about capitalizing empire following proper names, such as “the Roman empire.” Is the text old enough to preserve that error? <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span><em>CMOS </em>13.7 recommends silently correcting typographic errors while retaining capitalization of older works. I am writing a book with numerous quotations from archival sources from the nineteenth century. Does that count as old? These sources seem to have idiosyncratic rules about capitalizing <em>empire</em> following proper names, such as &ldquo;the Roman empire.&rdquo; Is the text old enough to preserve that error?</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:12:32 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0299.html Q. Which is correct? “Because of the affect/effect of unpaid interest, your loan balance has become larger than its cash value.” <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>Which is correct? &ldquo;Because of the affect/effect of unpaid interest, your loan balance has become larger than its cash value.&rdquo;</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:11:32 GMT http://chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0062.html Q. A program for an academic event includes a page that thanks “organizations, programs, and funds” for supporting student research. The entries are presented in list form. We are tripped up by how to alphabetize individual fund or award names (such the Ellen Vannet Fund and the Wilma Hubbell Award). We found guidance from this CMOS Q&A, which says “Alphabetize an organization under the first significant word, and an individual donor by surname. The Merry Gregg Foundation goes under&nbsp;M; Merry Gregg goes under&nbsp;G.” We extrapolated that a fund or award would follow the organization/foundation treatment, and we alphabetized by first significant word (not by the person’s last name). But our Advancement Office disagrees on this interpretation. Thanks for any guidance! You are a treasured resource. <p class="Q"><span class="Q_label">Q. </span>A program for an academic event includes a page that thanks &ldquo;organizations, programs, and funds&rdquo; for supporting student research. The entries are presented in list form. We are tripped up by how to alphabetize individual fund or award names (such the Ellen Vannet Fund and the Wilma Hubbell Award). We found guidance from this <a href="http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Alphabetizing/faq0016.html">CMOS Q&amp;A</a>, which says &ldquo;Alphabetize an organization under the first significant word, and an individual donor by surname. The Merry Gregg Foundation goes under&nbsp;<em>M</em>; Merry Gregg goes under&nbsp;<em>G</em>.&rdquo; We extrapolated that a fund or award would follow the organization/foundation treatment, and we alphabetized by first significant word (not by the person&rsquo;s last name). But our Advancement Office disagrees on this interpretation. Thanks for any guidance! You are a treasured resource.</p> Mon, 02 May 2016 18:09:52 GMT