Q. I keep hearing people say things like “She was a woman pilot” and “We have a woman speaker tonight.” In my mind, this is completely incorrect—shouldn’t it be female, not woman? Since when did woman become an adjective? Am I crazy?
A. You are merely perhaps a little behind the times. Woman has long been an accepted adjective. Please see CMOS 5.259:
When gender is relevant, it’s acceptable to use the noun woman as a modifier {woman judge}. In recent decades, woman has been rapidly replacing lady in such constructions. The adjective female is also often used unobjectionably.
—Editor’s update:
A. This is absolutely the right question to ask, but there are actually plenty of occasions when it makes sense to specify the gender of a pilot. {How many women pilots asked to join the association this year?} {Are male pilots paid more than women pilots?} {When did the first female pilot make that trip?}. CMOS 5.260 addresses this issue explicitly:
When it is important to mention a characteristic because it will help the reader develop a picture of the person you are writing about, use care. For instance, in the sentence Shirley Chisholm was probably the finest African American woman member of the House of Representatives that New York has ever had, the phrase African American woman may imply to some readers that Chisholm was a great representative “for a woman” but may be surpassed by many or all men, that she stands out only among African American members of Congress, or that it is unusual for a woman or an African American to hold high office. But in Shirley Chisholm was the first African American woman to be elected to Congress and one of New York’s all-time best representatives, the purpose of the phrase African American woman is not likely to be misunderstood.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi! I see a common mistake from writers I edit, but I’m not sure what to call it. An example sentence: “A key to understanding the movie was its being a musical.” Another: “One of the most interesting things about them is their endorsing a candidate.” A noun phrase made up of an “its + -ing + noun” formula. Certainly, these are easily rephrased, but is there a word for this besides simply poor writing style? Is there a grammatical rule I can refer these writers to? It’s pretty clearly colloquial for the region these writers are from, but I’d love to be able to give them a more accurate, professional response than “it just sounds bad.”
A. Although in some constructions (like yours) it is awkward, using the possessive (including pronouns) with a gerund is accepted grammar. Please see CMOS 7.28 for a discussion and examples (e.g., “I won’t stand for him [or his] being denigrated”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. To avoid gender-specific language, is it acceptable to use “upperclass students” as an alternative to “upperclassmen”? I am seeing this more and more in academia, where I work. An alternative would be “upper-class students,” but that seems to refer to those from a higher social and economic class. What do you recommend?
A. Upper-level students, returning students, juniors and seniors (or sophomores, juniors, and seniors—whichever you mean), third- and fourth-years, third- and fourth-year students. There are plenty of ways around this, and all are less ambiguous than “upper-class.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The following parenthetical sentence was in the introduction relating to your 20th anniversary in the February Style Q&A: “Note that some styles have shifted slightly since then.” What is your view of not using the word that in cases similar to your sentence? The word that can be deleted without changing the meaning, or in my view, without making the meaning harder to understand. It can be deleted from almost every use when it follows a verb. Would you agree adding a comma after Note and then deleting that would be clear to the reader?
A. When there really is no chance of confusion, by all means leave out that. Otherwise, let it do its honest work. That is often needed to prevent reading the next noun as a direct object. For instance, “Note those styles” is a complete imperative sentence. A reader would reasonably believe styles to be the object of Note and not expect it to have a verb of its own—only to find that styles is the subject of the verb have shifted in the dependent clause. The reader stumbles. Newspapers notoriously leave out that, causing goofy misdirection:
“But the obtained records reveal the scope of visitor misbehavior is huge” (Matthew Brown, “Visitor Misbehavior Abounds at U.S. Parks,” Chicago Tribune, August 31, 2016, Kindle edition).
As for using a comma after Note, a colon would be better, and in fact is quite common in place of that (Note: Some styles have shifted). Note, of course, that the need for a comma or colon suggests that the omission of that would be problematic otherwise.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It’s long-standing software jargon to “save to disk” or “save to file.” Recently I’m seeing “save to list,” “save to album,” and other “save to” constructions in user interfaces and other places where I would use “save in” or other prepositions. Where can I get advice on whether the “save to” construction is idiomatic outside my industry?
A. Jargon in one area often spreads to other areas. It would be difficult—if not impossible—to determine exactly when an expression becomes “appropriate.” You can compare the frequency of specific phrases in professionally published books (which for the most part tend to stick to “appropriate” language) at Google Ngram Viewer. There’s also a searchable database of TV and movie scripts.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. “Your feedback is important and will help us identify ways to make the company a better workplace.” My habit is to change “ways to make” to “ways of making,” but I’m having trouble explaining why. I’ve looked in CMOS under infinitives and gerunds and elsewhere, but I can’t find a justification. Is there one, and if so, where in CMOS is it?
A. Actually, both wordings are fine. There’s no grammatical reason to prefer one over the other.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is the verb number correct in the following sentence? (I believe that are should be changed to is, but my French coeditor disagrees.) “A case in point are the representatives associated with the 1977 exhibition in New York.” Many thanks!
A. You’re right: the subject of the sentence, case, is singular. Nonetheless, when one out of two editors thinks a construction is wrong, it’s begging for a rewrite—lest half your readers also think it’s wrong. You can switch subject and complement easily: The representatives . . . are a case in point.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question is about this sentence construction: I’m bigger, stronger, and I know more about it. In narration, I would change this to “I’m bigger and stronger, and I know more about it.” But when it appears in dialogue in novels, I’m inclined to leave it as is. What’s Chicago’s take on this construction? Am I right to be fixing it in narration? Thank you!
A. It’s a judgment call. But by editing only the punctuation, you can eliminate the infelicity and retain the original language: I’m bigger, stronger. And I know more about it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should the sound (i.e., pronunciation) of a parenthetically included word be factored in when deciding between a and an? “Patent holders may wish to consider a (preliminary) injunction” or “Patent holders may wish to consider an (preliminary) injunction.” Lots of internet discussion on this one, but I can’t seem to find any definitive answer in style manuals or grammar books.
A. A definitive answer would be hard to find, but the reader can’t skip over the word in parentheses, and either choice is problematic. In most cases like this, there’s little to justify having parentheses in the first place. Removing them is the easiest solution.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS experts, I’m in a debate with my thesis advisor regarding using years or decades as time-stamp adjectives. For instance, I might write: “Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel The Great Gatsby” or “influenced by 1950s rock and roll.” However, my advisor says this is wrong. It should be “Fitzgerald’s novel from 1925 The Great Gatsby” or “rock and roll from the 1950s.” Who is right?
A. You are right, but your advisor is following a zombie rule that won’t die, and there may be no point in arguing. You might ask your advisor to point you to the rule in an up-to-date style manual. You can also point to CMOS 5.83 as support for your own view.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]