Q. I am proofreading a nonfiction book which introduces new people in an inconsistent manner: sometimes they are introduced
by first name, sometimes last, sometimes by a shortened form of their name. Sometimes the book goes several pages before completely
identifying the person. Is there a rule which governs how names should be handled?
A. At proofs stage, you can query any omissions that cause problems, but it may be too late to insert complete identifications.
Unless the point is to keep the reader guessing, it’s best to provide the full name at the first mention,
along with other introductory details. After that, surnames ought to be enough, although sometimes it’s
good to remind the reader. And of course some familiar names need no introduction.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My job entails editing and Americanizing books from the UK. We normally change British spellings to American for our audience,
like defence to defense or centre to center. But what do I do in cases where one of these words is part of an official name, as in Ministry of Defence? or such-and-such
Centre? If I leave the British spelling, it looks wrong compared to the text, but if I change it to the American spelling,
it is wrong according to the organization.
A. Don’t worry—neither will look wrong. The text will look American and the name
will look British. You can’t change the names of organizations, and most readers will know that.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am a translator and in my work I always have to deal with proper names of works of art, locations, streets, cities, etc.
What is the rule of thumb for that? Leave in the original language or translate into English? I have seen both. Would you
kindly help me?
A. I’m afraid there’s no easy answer, because the decision depends on what you believe
will be most useful to the readers you expect to read that work. If you’re translating a scholarly text
for specialists, readers will want the original. If you’re translating a spy novel, they won’t
necessarily. Sometimes you’ll want both to appear right there in the text (one in parentheses); other
times you’ll want to hide one or the other in a note. It’s a decision that should
be made with the author’s input, if possible.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Many of the products that my company offers employ midcaps (internal capital letters) as well as partial italics—for example, CustomerCares. In chapter 8, I see that Chicago style is to preserve midcaps in company or product names—do you recommend the same for italics?
A. No, we don’t. Once you start trying to accommodate typographic styles, it’s hard to stop. There are companies that use bold font or small caps or a backward R—and how about those logos where the first letter is small and then the letters get progressively larger, or where the letters have little wings on them? Better to look the other way.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does the CMOS have a preferred spelling list of prominent Iraqi proper names, cities, and towns? Different publications use different spellings,
but I would like to adhere to the CMOS preferences.
A. No, sorry. CMOS is not the right place to list current spellings of the world’s cities—such a
list would be out of date before the book hit the shelves. Style sheets from newspapers or news services like the Associated
Press are better sources for this type of information.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How should I list an author’s name when it is given in different forms in different works I am citing (e.g., John Smith, John R. Smith, J. R. Smith)? In the case of an author’s name in a non-Roman script, if the name has been transliterated differently in different publications, shall I list the name as given in each publication, or choose one form? If a name in a non-Roman script is transliterated differently from the system of transliteration I am using, what shall I do? Thank you!
A. Please see CMOS 14.82: “When a writer has published under different forms of his or her name, each work should be listed under the name that appears with the work—unless the difference is merely the use of initials versus full names. . . . Cross-references are occasionally used.” If a transliterated version is very different from the one used most often in the book, list it as a blind entry with a cross-reference to the more common one.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When printing the name of someone whose last name is instantly recognizable and unmistakable like, say, Warhol, would you
still advise that the person’s given name be included upon first mention? Or is it acceptable to refer
to the individual by his/her last name right off the bat (Bach, Shakespeare, Warhol, etc.)?
A. The editor should consider the intended audience and decide accordingly. You don’t want to insult readers’
intelligence by stating the obvious, but sometimes you might want to educate the uninitiated by providing the full information.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello folks. I’m editing a travel brochure on South America, and one of the natural wonders featured prominently is Iguaçú (or Iguazú) Falls, which sits right where Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina meet. While this is a single wonder, it is accessible from three different countries boasting a total of two different national languages, and as such it has two possible correct spellings: Iguaçú (Portuguese, on the Brazil side) and Iguazú (Spanish, preferred in Paraguay and Argentina). National Geographic Atlas of the World (8th edition) uses both spellings (Iguazú National Park in Paraguay, Iguaçú River in Brazil, for example), showing the border where the spelling (and political jurisdiction) changes. They refer to the falls in Portuguese (Foz do Iguaçú) on the map, but use both spellings in the index and on their website. I emailed them to ask if they knew which country if any maintains physical ownership of the falls, and apparently it is a shared natural wonder. They suggested that I use both spellings in my brochure, Spanish in the sections on Spanish countries, and so on. This was not a feasible solution for this type of project, so in the end I just chose one (Iguazú: another editor’s son is named Zheid, pronounced “Zed.” We established a new house rule that whenever there is a choice between two spellings, pick the one with a zed. If there is no z and no other clear solution, flip a coin). How would CMOS handle this one?
A. We don’t have a Zheid, but I sometimes go by “Ed.,” so let’s say I get to choose. Assuming that the readers are to be primarily English-speaking, I’ll follow Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, which lists Iguaçú first (though Iguazú is listed also, as an equal variant; Chicago usually picks the first-listed term and sticks with it).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Since the Great Depression can be shortened to simply the Depression, how does one deal with a document that includes both
usages? Sometimes the word “Great” adds the right amount of emphasis or helps
the cadence of the sentence. Other times, just “the Depression” will do. Must
one keep consistent by choosing one over the other?
A. I don’t see a need for consistency. Better to have a little variety.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If someone has a PhD and is a professor at a university, what would be his or her title? Doctor or Professor?
A. Although this question doesn’t really fall within the purview of CMOS, the manuscript editing department at Chicago is of course well versed in etiquette, as we are in most things. Traditions vary from school to school and from discipline to discipline. You’re always safe with Mr. or Ms., but I doubt that any teachers would be offended if you called them Professor, whether or not they are one. Doctor is usually reserved for medical doctors, although some professors use it, and PhDs who don’t have tenure-track appointments (and who therefore don’t hold the title of professor) often like to use Doctor instead. (For other questions of etiquette, you can browse the internet for “etiquette” or “manners” or, in this case, “forms of address.”)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]