Q. In the word-by-word alphabetizing example in CMOS 15.69, why are “New, Zoe” and “News, Networks, and the Arts” before “New Deal” and “news conference,” respectively? Thanks.
A. As explained there, in the text introducing a comparison of the two basic systems of alphabetization—letter by letter and word by word—a comma “interrupts” alphabetizing in both systems. This means that any words that follow a comma are ignored unless what comes before the comma is identical in two or more entries:
New, Arthur [alphabetized under “New”]
New, Zoe [also alphabetized under “New”; “Zoe” follows “Arthur”]
New Deal [alphabetized under “New Deal” (which follows “New”)]
news, lamentable [alphabetized under “news”]
News, Networks, and the Arts [also alphabetized under “News”; “Networks” follows “lamentable”]
news conference [alphabetized under “news conference” (which follows “news”)]
The order of the terms above would be the same in the letter-by-letter system. But in letter-by-letter order, a space between words is ignored. So, for example, “newborn” would come before the phrase “New Deal” in the letter-by-letter system (because “newb” comes before “New D”), whereas the opposite would be true in a list arranged word by word, in which alphabetizing stops after the first word in each entry (the word “New” comes before “newborn”). Note that Chicago now prefers the word-by-word system (as of the 18th edition; see CMOS 15.66).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If an index subentry starts with a full name, do you alphabetize by last name or first? Here is an example: “. . . Menachem Begin visit to (1948), 67–69; Biltmore Conference in (1942), 27, 220n44; . . .” I was told to move the Begin entry to come before the Biltmore Conference entry. It was originally alphabetized under “M.” But it seems like a weird choice.
A. It may seem odd in any one entry, but when a full name appears in an index entry without being inverted—as in a subentry like yours that’s been run in to the main entry (with the help of semicolons rather than new lines and indents)—it’s still usually alphabetized by last name. Alphabetic order isn’t all that important in subentries (which are typically limited to a small block of text), but some readers will appreciate that the logic for names, inverted and not, is consistent across the index.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello. I am alphabetizing something according to the word-by-word system and am curious about whether conjunctions are taken into account. Or are they disregarded as they would be at the beginning of an entry? For example, would the correct alphabetical order be (1) animal experiments, (2) animal and human bond (conjunction ignored), or (1) animal and human bond, (2) animal experiments (conjunction considered)? Thanks for your assistance.
A. In Chicago style, any word occurring in the middle of an entry, including a conjunction, counts in alphabetization (whether word by word or letter by letter), so your second ordering is correct (the a in “and” precedes the e in “experiments”). A conjunction would also count at the beginning of an entry, with one notable exception: index subentries. For example, here’s what an entry for “hyphenation” might look like in a book index:
hyphenation: of compound modifiers, 147; and line breaks, 108; in Microsoft Word, 148
Not only is “and” ignored in the second subentry, but so are “of” and “in” in the first and third subentries; like conjunctions, prepositions are ignored at the beginning of index subentries, as are articles (see CMOS 16.68). But at the beginning of main index entries—and, by extension, any ordinary list—only articles (a, an, and the) are ignored. To make it easier for readers to find things, entries with articles are inverted:
“And I Love Her” (Beatles)
“Day in the Life, A” (Beatles)
Invisible Man (Ellison)
Invisible Man, The (Wells)
On the Origin of Species (Darwin)
Origin: A Genetic History of the Americas (Raff)
Note that the “And” in the first item counts; if it didn’t, “And I Love Her” would be listed second. Note also that if you were to disregard “On the,” Darwin would follow Raff. See also CMOS 16.56 and 16.144.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I can’t locate an answer to this question. Are proper names with particles alphabetized based on the particle or the first element? I.e., which comes first, “da Rosa” or “Dario”?
A. If you’re alphabetizing letter by letter, put “Dario” first (“d-a-r-i” comes before “d-a-r-o”); under the word-by-word system, “da Rosa” would go first (“da” comes before “Dario”). In either system, the particle is alphabetized along with the name unless the surname is normally listed without the particle. So, for example, Simone de Beauvoir would be listed before an individual with the last name da Rosa even though “de” would follow “da”—because Beauvoir is generally referred to by surname alone, without the particle (and would be listed as “Beauvoir, Simone de” in an index). See CMOS 16.71 for more examples.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If the title of a magazine article contains the word now, as in “And Now Gay Rights,” should it be alphabetized under N?
A. Conjunctions count when alphabetizing titles; that title would go under A for And.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This Q&A appears on your site:
Q. In a bibliography where the title of an unsigned article is a date (“1939: The Beginning of the End”), does the bibliography begin with this entry, or is it alphabetized according to its spelled-out word?
A. It’s usual to file a title like that under the spelled-out version of the number, in this case, nineteen. However, in lists where many such titles begin with numbers, you might rather group them all in numerical order at the beginning. In rare instances you could post an important title at both locations or add a cross-reference directing the reader to the location of the full citation.
My question is: Why nineteen? What if the title were 1,939 Pieces of Candy? The convention of saying “nineteen thirty-nine” for a date is simply that, a convention. For 2014 there is not yet a common convention: I have heard both “two thousand fourteen” and “twenty fourteen.” I would think that the correct method is to alphabetize by spelling out each number individually. Also, in the computer age when tables and other finding aids are programmatically generated, using the number-by-number approach requires only ten lines of computer code. Your existing answer would require an infinite number of lines, one for each number.
A. This is why good human indexers are better than computers: they have common sense. Humans can style the entry in the form they expect most readers to look under, and they can judge when extra help is needed.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m encountering reference lists that include names that do not use the typical structure of “surname, first name.” Typically I follow CMOS in cases that seem clear. However, in some dialects or cases, there aren’t surnames, exactly, and authors have asked me to keep entries as is, without commas. I find this all very confusing. Would you please advise?
A. When editing non-English names and languages, it’s wise to defer to the writer’s wishes rather than blindly apply rules from a style manual. (CMOS 8.15 recognizes that Chinese names, for example, usually begin with the family surname rather than the given name—but some people of Chinese origin choose to switch to the common Western order.) Keep a careful record of your writer’s requests and instructions; keep an eye out for anything that looks like a contradiction or ambiguity; query generously; and pass along a memo about the issue to your assigning editor or anyone else who might blame you for problems later!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are pallbearer names and honorary pallbearer names supposed to be alphabetized by last name in a funeral service program?
A. There is no rule, but if the names are alphabetized, readers may assume that the people are equally important. If the names are out of order, readers may assume they are listed in order of honor or importance.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work in a publicity department where we routinely sort back issues of national news publications. I have trouble figuring out how to sort publications with New York in the title: the New Yorker, the New York Times, New York Magazine, the New York Review of Books. Would the New Yorker come before New York Magazine, treating the final e in New Yorker as alphabetically prior to the first letter of Magazine, or would you put the New Yorker after all the others that contain New York followed by a space?
A. That depends. There are two popular methods for putting items into alphabetical order: letter by letter and word by word. Your list of terms would sort differently depending on which system you choose. You would greatly benefit from reading CMOS sections 16.58–61, which explain the two systems and compare them side by side.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We need to alphabetize a list of donors but it’s difficult to find a consistent format. Who to list first in a couple with the same last name? Jane and John Smith, if the wife is the principal donor, and John and Jane Smith if the husband is? We have the same confusion regarding couples with different last names. John Smith and Jane Doe, when he is the main donor, and Jane Doe and John Smith, when she is? And what’s the rule for alphabetizing such couples? Do you alphabetize by the first name listed or the second? Does inconsistency matter?
A. Most of your questions are more matters of etiquette than of style or grammar. Your organization could make a little style sheet with answers to all these questions—including whether consistency should yield to etiquette in your donor lists. Here’s an answer to your one style question, to get you started: yes, alphabetize by the last name of the first person in each pair.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]