Q. What’s your current recommendation on ending a sentence with a preposition? Current example: “[Nurses bound the] wounds of the men they were taking care of.”
A. Our current recommendation has been current since 1906: there is no rule against ending a sentence with a preposition. Please see CMOS 5.180: “The traditional caveat of yesteryear against ending sentences or clauses with prepositions is an unnecessary and pedantic restriction. And it is wrong.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Choosing between in or at: When referring to a specific area on a slide presentation, would you say “in the top right-hand corner” or “at the top right-hand corner”? Are there rules that help one determine when to use in or at?
A. Prepositions are tricky! Even fluent English speakers can disagree on which one to use. CMOS 5.195 presents a list of words that usually go with certain prepositions, but often (as in your sentence) more than one works well. When you’re stuck, look up the preposition in a dictionary and find an example phrase or sentence that’s similar to the one you’re puzzling over.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When did The Chicago Manual of Style first state that ending a sentence with a preposition is not wrong (paragraph 5.180 in the current edition of CMOS)?
A. CMOS has never prohibited a preposition at the end of a sentence in any of its versions and editions since 1906. The first edition to state positively that a preposition may end a sentence was the 15th, in 2003, the first edition of the Manual to contain a chapter on grammar.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My editors cannot seem to agree on whether to use in or to in the following (and similar) sentences: (1) The bill (or law) makes technical changes in the insurance statutes; (2) The bill (or law) makes technical changes to the insurance statutes. What is the difference between “changes in” and “changes to,” and how does one determine which construction to use?
A. There is no difference, and there’s no need for consistency. If your editors are fiddling with these, they might be overstepping. If there is some arcane legal difference in meaning, they should be able to tell you what reference book or style manual or dictionary supports their decisions. It’s not Chicago style!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi there. I have a question regarding the use of double prepositions. Is there a rule against it? I tried to check for rules in CMOS, but I didn’t see any. I also checked a dictionary, and it says that “off of” is an idiom and is therefore correct.
A. That “off of” is an idiom does not mean it’s correct. In fact, it means that caution is required: many idioms are considered slang or informal. CMOS guidelines apply to formal speech and writing, and CMOS says never to use “off of” (see 5.250, under “off”). There is no rule against double prepositions, however. “I ran out of the house” and “He peered from behind the tree” are perfectly grammatical and idiomatic.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear Sir or Madam, I’m having a disagreement with a coworker on a particular subject, and as my CMOS is at home, I can’t go to it for a ruling. I’m arguing that the prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition is an invalid injunction—one that often serves to confuse and befuddle the reader by forcing tortured and mangled word placements. She says that the “rule” must be followed. So, is it appropriate to end a sentence with a preposition? Thank you.
A. That old prohibition is what we call a grammar superstition. You will not find it in any authoritative grammar book. Please see CMOS 5.180.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I do not know how to deal with a sentence with two prepositions very close to each another: Drill pilot holes through the
bottom and top panels into the side panels. Everyone at my workplace thinks I should add “and”
so it reads: Drill pilot holes through the bottom and top panels and into the side panels. I have five people saying to use
the “and.” I’m truly torn.
A. The fact that five people are complaining about this should tell you that it’s not yet clear enough.
Your own version suggests that the drill passes through the top and into the side in one motion, which is one possibility.
Your colleagues’ version suggests that the top holes are drilled first, and then the side holes. Try
to write it so there’s no doubt. For instance, Drill pilot holes through the bottom and top panels and
then into the side panels. Please keep trying—everyone with a power drill will thank you.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question regards the use of “as per.” Example: “As per your request, I enclose a check.” This use has always sounded redundant to me, and pretentious. Isn’t it more correct to say, “As you requested” or “Per your request”?