Q. For the labels on a wall at an art exhibit, should it be “courtesy of the artist” or “courtesy the artist”? I am under the impression that “courtesy of” is acknowledgment as well as thanks to the second party for providing something.
A. The phrase “by courtesy of” is typically shortened to “courtesy of.” In credit lines and the like, where space tends to be limited, the phrase has often been further shortened to “courtesy.” In the context of giving credit, all three forms mean the same thing (something like “thanks to” or “kindly provided by”). Pick one and be consistent, though “courtesy of” is probably the best choice in most contexts, room permitting.
Q. Is it “companies and people who dodge taxes” or “companies and people that dodge taxes”? What if the order is changed?
A. The relative pronouns “who” and “that” can both be used to apply to people or groups thereof, so “companies who,” “companies that,” “people who,” and “people that” are all strictly correct. However, readers tend to expect “that” with an abstract collective noun like “companies” and “who” in references to people—collective or not. When the two nouns are paired, choose the relative pronoun that would fit best with the nearest antecedent: “people and companies that,” but “companies and people who.” The choice is somewhat arbitrary, but at least some readers are likely to appreciate the distinction, particularly in that last pairing.
Q. I have run across the phrase “comprised of” multiple times in a book I’m editing. Depending on context, Google Docs wants me to use “composed” or “consisting” or “comprises” or whatever fits. I know M-W says that while the phrase is not technically incorrect, it does sometimes receive scrutiny. Does CMOS have an official standpoint on its use? Thanks!
A. See CMOS 5.250, under “comprise; compose”: “Use with care. To comprise is ‘to consist of, to include’ {the whole comprises the parts}. To compose is ‘to make up, to form the substance of something’ {the parts compose the whole}. The phrase is comprised of, though increasingly common, remains nonstandard. Instead, try is composed of or consists of.” Another option: “is made up of.”
Some of the decisions an editor makes will always be directed at other editors—or at readers who think like editors. “Comprise” is one of those words that, if you misuse it, risks drawing the attention of anyone who pays close attention to dictionaries and usage manuals (not to mention whatever their screens are telling them). So take the hint from Google and revise to avoid “comprised of”—except, for example, in a direct quotation or as an example of dialogue that reflects how many people actually use the term.
Q. Parenthetical material is usually invisible to the grammar of the rest of the sentence, so should it be “a” or “an” in the phrase “a (appropriate) joke”?
A. Although almost anything can be placed inside them (Is it Friday yet?), parentheses don’t make the words they enclose literally invisible. Readers are still obliged to read what’s inside along with the rest of the text. So write “an (appropriate) joke,” which will spare us from reading “a appropriate joke,” a phrase that, stylistically speaking, would be inappropriate.
Q. Would it be “None of us gets to decide these things” or “None of us get to decide these things”? Thank you.
A. “None” can mean “not one” or “not any,” so both are correct. The first sense favors the singular: “Not one of us gets to decide” (“one” is singular). The second favors the plural: “Not any of us get to decide” (“any” is more often plural than singular). Because your example could go either way, consider the context. If the statement applies to people in general, plural “get” would make the most sense. But if it’s a response to one or more individuals, singular “gets” might become the better choice. For some additional considerations, see CMOS 5.250 (under “none”).
Q. My question is about using a definite article before an attributive noun used to identify someone. For instance, “the photographer Ansel Adams took my picture,” as opposed to “photographer Ansel Adams took my picture.” Do you prefer to use the article? Newspaperese style seems to be to omit it, but I’m a holdout. Thanks for any guidance.
A. The version with the definite article is a bit more formal; the version without it is more common in casual prose and journalism, as you suggest. The latter treats the occupation “photographer” as an informal personal title (i.e., like “Doctor,” but without the honorific capitalization) rather than as a descriptive phrase placed in apposition to the name (see CMOS 8.30). Some of our editors, like you, would prefer to retain the “the” in your example (at least in formal prose), but either version is grammatically sound.
Q. Is it correct to use “with” as a conjunction, as in “The regulator received four complaints this month, with two of them related to anticompetitive behavior”? I don’t do it, as I want to avoid it being read as “along with,” but I see this type of construction quite often.
A. According to Garner’s Modern English Usage (4th ed., 2016), the use of “with” as “a quasi-conjunction to introduce a tag-on idea at the end of a sentence” is increasingly common but still best avoided. Your example sentence could be fixed with the help of a semicolon and the addition of “were”: “The regulator received four complaints this month; two of them were related to anticompetitive behavior.”
Q. Would “Depending on” count as a dangler in “Depending on the weather, the play will be performed outdoors”? If not, why not?
A. We don’t think that’s a true dangler. It is a bit dangly looking; the play itself doesn’t depend on the weather—as a literal reading might suggest.
But consider that the introductory phrase is a sort of idiomatic shorthand for “Depending on how the weather turns out.” Idioms are expressions that are generally understood but don’t necessarily stand up to grammatical analysis. A true dangler is more likely to occur when the participial phrase has a more direct connection to the rest of the sentence:
Acting in the rain, the play showcased the resilience of the performers.
In that sentence, “Acting in the rain” appears (illogically) to modify the play directly rather than the performers. To fix this, rewrite: “Acting in the rain, the play’s performers displayed their resilience.” For more examples, see CMOS 5.115.
Q. “The majority of samples were/was extracted from regular biopsy procedures.” I think I should use “was,” but “were” sounds better to the ear. What is the correct way?
A. Many writers are told to ignore prepositional phrases when deciding on the number of the verb. But this advice doesn’t work in all cases. When the subject is “majority,” and a prepositional phrase with a plural object follows, it’s the object that usually determines the number of the verb. So choose “were.”
But note that “majority” may be either singular or plural even when used alone:
The majority usually wins.
but
The majority were wearing masks.
When in doubt, trust your instincts; if the sense of the sentence suggests a plural verb, use one.
Q. Hello! I understand that when an indefinite pronoun like “everything” is the subject of a clause, it takes a singular verb (per CMOS 5.67). But I’m stumped by the following sentence, whose compound subject is composed of two indefinite pronouns: “Everything we say and everything we do [is/are] built on this idea.” Does it take a singular or a plural verb? The singular sounds better to my ear, but the plural seems like the logical choice.
A. We agree with your assessment. Though it seems logical that two (or more) singular subjects joined by and would take a plural verb, the results won’t always sound right. In the case of indefinite pronouns that take a singular verb, they can remain singular in combination. For example,
Anyone and everyone was there tonight.
That seems right to us—though MS Word’s grammar checker flags was in that sentence as a potential error and suggests were as a correction. In your sentence, you might try “Everything we say and do is built on this idea.” That’s more concise—and more obviously singular. But there’s nothing wrong with your version, which has the advantage of being nicely emphatic.