Q. In a recent Q&A, you insist that “et al.” can be used only for two or more individuals. But cannot “et al.” equally be an abbreviated form of the singular “et alius”? And, as such, can it not be used for a single individual?
A. You’re right, there’s no reason et al. couldn’t stand for et alius (“and another”) rather than et alii/aliae/alia (“and others”). For our answer we (mostly) relied on Merriam-Webster and the OED, both of which define et al. only as “and others” and both of which cite et alii (masculine), et aliae (feminine), and et alia (neuter) as the only spelled-out forms. Maybe the dictionaries are right. Or maybe they’re missing the occasional singular use hidden behind the abbreviation. And it’s not like the world would end if one were to use et al. to stand in for a single person. We’ll keep tabs on this issue and consider reconsidering our advice someday.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Back to lay/lie, which is my most unfavorite error! There is an exception to the answer you gave in a recent Q&A—“lay takes an object” EXCEPT when you’re talking about chickens! The hens are laying. (Of course, eggs are implied, but not mentioned.)
A. In grammar as in life, there will always be exceptions. Merriam-Webster does list a few intransitive senses for “lay,” the first of which is “to produce and deposit eggs.” But as you suggest, one person’s intransitive verb is another’s elliptical construction. You can call your cousins or just call [them]. And if you’re not laying eggs, what exactly is your object? (Please don’t lay into us on that one—yet another intransitive use for “lay,” in which the object requires the intervention of a preposition.)
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a past Q&A there is a question about “a fund-raising event.” Does CMOS still treat “fund-raising” as a hyphenated word as in your answer? Is there a reason that you depart from M-W on this one?
Q. Hi, CMOS staff. My question itself concerns two Q&A entries. In the first one, it looks as though a department name, even when part of a long corporate title, gets capped: “Mary Smith, director of Human Resources.” In the second one, though, it appears that if an otherwise would-be-capped department is a part of the title, it too gets lowercased: “Jordan Smith is assistant secretary of bureaucracy and obfuscation.” I’m editing a book that is constantly shifting its capitalization patterns for these departments (such as “chair of the Department of Physiology and Neuroscience” and “the head of the emergency department”), and I’m having a hard time determining which way to jump, because the advice in these Q&A entries seems to be contradictory. Could anyone shed some light on this for me?
A. The two answers might seem contradictory because neither mentions that departments may be referred to generically by lowercasing them. “Chair of the department of physiology and neuroscience” could be written by someone who either doesn’t know the official name of the department or knows that the official name is the Bedecker Department of Physiology and the Neurosciences.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
