Q. I am currently editing a lengthy manuscript made up almost entirely of quotations made by a dead person to a living person. The living person is what is known as a “channeler.” Since the living person is quoting what the dead person tells her, how do I handle the quotes? The dead person is of such stature that giving the quotes to the living person does not seem right. Any help you can give me is much appreciated.
A. If you want to represent the dead person as truly speaking through the channeler, then by all means quote the dead person as if he or she is physically speaking, even if it is the living person’s voice box that is being used for turning spirit or thought into physical vibrations in the air. If you do this well, it will be clear enough what is going on (though you may want to outline your methods in an introductory paragraph). I think that it would be more awkward to keep having to resort to something like “the channeler, speaking the voice of the dead person, then said. . . .”
You might consider some alternative approaches. The rather convoluted narrative voices in Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom! were differentiated in a variety of ways, most of them verbal, but some of them typographical. For example, you might decide to use unquoted italic type for everything that the dead person says through the channeler—or for everything that the dead person does not say. Whatever approach you use, try to maximize the transparency with which different voices can be distinguished. (And for more ideas, see CMOS 13.39–45, which includes discussions of unspoken and indirect discourse.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation marks, but do the British do it that way too???
A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see CMOS 6.9), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In paragraph 13.7, in the section on permissible changes to quotations, CMOS says, “Obvious typographic errors may be corrected silently (without comment or sic; see 13.61) unless the passage quoted is from an older work or a manuscript or other unpublished source where idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved.” Earlier in the passage, CMOS states that direct quotes must reproduce exactly not only the wording but the spelling, capitalization, and internal punctuation of the original. It does not mention italicizing. When I’ve edited quotes or extracts from older texts, I’ve, as a rule, reproduced pretty much “everything” as it is in the older text. I am editing a book now with numerous quotes from seventeenth-century books or letters, referencing ships. Before launching forth, thought I would double check. Seems ship names were not italicized back then. My thought is to leave as they are in the original—as roman. That is, do not italicize ship names in the quotes or extracts. Would this be correct?
A. In addition to spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, I’d also preserve the distinction in the original between italic and roman type. It is certainly necessary to retain any italics in quoted text that are there for reasons of emphasis, but it’s also probably best to retain italics used for other reasons and, by the same token, refrain from adding italics (you can of course add italics within a quotation for the purposes of your own emphasis, as long as you clearly indicate where you’ve done this with a bracketed phrase such as “emphasis added”). But the line is not always a clearly etched one. You need not necessarily italicize a quoted passage that’s been presented entirely in italic type, for example. And if you quote a subhead that’s been italicized in the original source for reasons of design, you can certainly present it in roman. Just make sure that whatever you do, do not obscure the meaning of the original passage.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The following is a two-part quotation mark question: Is a quotation nested within a separate quotation of double quotes recognized by an additional set of double quotes? Or is the quotation in question enclosed by single quotes? If my question hasn’t confused you, perhaps my example will. The court transcript detailed Jack’s recollection of that fateful day. Jack took the stand and began his testimony. “Your honor, I distinctly remember Jill saying to me, “Jack, I will never climb that hill. Furthermore, what good is a pail of water?”” Please advise.
A. Quotation marks alternate, as follows: quotations within quotations are single, quotations within quotations within quotations are double, quotations within quotations within quotations within quotations are single, etc.
He said, “I have one request: never say ‘never say “never” ’ again.”
I hope this is clear enough. For more information, start with CMOS 13.30.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When quoting statutory material, is it appropriate to substitute ellipses points in for semicolons that end the “line”
of a statutory clause? For instance, suppose a statutory clause reads “(i) Procedures involving animals
will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals;”, and this is the end of the line
(that is, the next line starts with “(ii)”). In this situation, if one quotes
the line itself, should one end it with a period, ellipses points, or maybe even a bracketed period?
A. CMOS would recommend that you quote your example as follows: “Procedures involving animals will avoid or
minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animals.” The function of the semicolon, out of context,
becomes irrelevant, and there is no need to use ellipses or to bracket the period. Within a sentence, the quotation would
look like this:
The relevant clause states that “[p]rocedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress,
and pain to the animals,” and this organization has done everything in its power to follow suit.
Note that the “p” has been lowercased because grammar requires it but placed in
brackets in deference to the original text. CMOS recommends doing this for all legal works and textual criticism. But the end punctuation is a different matter here, and
in the example above a comma is required.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you distinguish when a single quotation mark is used versus a double quotation mark? I’m not referring
to quotes within quotes, but about the use of single quotation marks closer to linguistic uses. I see both single and double
quotation marks in instances seemingly for special meaning but not limited to linguistics. (That also seemingly will drive
whether a comma is placed inside or outside the closing single quotation mark.)
A. For nonspecialist texts, Chicago recommends double quotation marks for everything except quotations within quotations. The
comma or period goes inside.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]