Q. I cannot find any advice in section 6.99 about how to handle completion of abridged matter when providing the missing letters in brackets. For instance, if the original has “P. Jarnach,” should one write “P.[hilipp] Jarnach” or “P[hilipp] Jarnach”? In other words, should one keep or drop the period? My practice has always been to omit it because it is obvious that there was one and because keeping it would look crowded.
Q. What is Chicago style counsel for using empty brackets when attempting to fit a quotation syntactically into a sentence? The Bluebook permits empty brackets to indicate “the omission of letters from a common root word”—for example, “judgment[]” (77). Does Chicago follow this? And if not, how does Chicago handle such cases where, for instance, an original approached needs to be made approach?
Q. I am unclear on when to put a term following “known as” in quotation marks. I searched CMOS online and saw what seemed like conflicting styles in the search results, but perhaps there is an obvious guideline I am not picking up on. For example, paragraph 3.59 says, “The left-hand column of a table, known as the stub,” and 3.4 has “Artwork consisting of solid black on a white background . . . is traditionally known as line art” (no quotation marks around “the stub” or “line art”). But 2.110 says, “The proofreader must mark only the proofs, never the manuscript, which is now known as ‘dead’ or ‘foul’ copy,” and 8.61 has “For example, the cheese known as ‘gruyère’ takes its name from a district in Switzerland” (with quotation marks around the terms). My sentence is “One technique, known as resist ware, gives vessels a vibrant texture.” Quotation marks around “resist ware” or no?
Q. Hello, I am currently working on the review of a novel. The study I’m working on is a literary one. I employed the author-date system under Chicago style for the referencing. My question is, for quoted text, do I have to begin each quotation from the novel and from other sources in a separate paragraph, as in
Molars help us in digesting food.
Symbolically, “they allow us to process the information that we consider or take in and turn it into our own actions.”
Or could I continue on the same line, like this:
Molars help us in digesting food. Symbolically, “they allow us to process the information that we consider or take in and turn it into our own actions.”
Q. A question about paraphrased quotations. I am proofreading an artist monograph that includes substantial text. Much of the text comes from interviews with people who knew the artist. In many cases, the interviewees quote someone else, but in more or less every single case, these are paraphrased quotes and not exact reproductions of what someone said. The editor and I have not been able to come to a conclusion as to whether it would be better to set such quotes between double quotation marks, or to italicize them, or to simply capitalize the first word of the “quote.” We prefer to not simply capitalize the first letter for fear that it might cause some confusion, seeing as there are many different voices in the text. And we are hesitating about using quotation marks because (a) they are not exact quotes and (b) we feel that they divide up the text too much. We like the idea of using italics, as they maybe allow the text to flow better. However, italics are already in use for a number of foreign expressions in the text.
Q. Hello! I’m copyediting a biography for a university press. I’m looking at a list that is quoted in running text with roman numerals, and it’s not nice to look at or particularly easy to read. The list items are short, and numbering isn’t even needed. (The quote is from a secondary source, so the author may not know the layout of the original source.) I’m wondering if I can delete the roman numerals or add punctuation without ellipses and/or brackets. Here’s the sentence in question:
The meeting approved a few basic principles: “The farmers of Canada had to unite to I. protect themselves, II. to obtain complete control of their produce, III. to market their produce themselves.”
Q. In Chicago style after how many words do you use a block quote?
Q. I’m currently copyediting a chapter in a contributed volume, where one of the authors quotes as follows: “that no purely third-person, theoretical proposal or model would suffice to overcome” “the conceptual gap between subjective experience and the brain.” My question concerns the closing double quotations marks and the opening double quotations marks that are placed next to each other. I think this looks rather clumsy. Could I put ellipsis points between two quotes if the latter quote actually comes before the first quote in the original source, as is the case here? Or should ellipsis points only be used if the original order of the quoted parts is retained?
Q. How does one handle a parenthetical phrase within dialogue? For example, is this correct? “Hi, Tiger (his father’s nickname for him). What are you doing?”
Q. I disagree with the following: The runner noted that, “This course is very difficult.” Better: The runner noted that “this course is very difficult.” Why the comma in the first example? Why uppercase the “T”? Do you agree with me?