Q. In copyediting technical material, I often come across constructions such as “Results show that a potential source of chemical X may exist beneath building Y.” This sounds like hedging to me. Does one really need both the potential and the may? Wouldn’t either “Results show that a source of chemical X may exist beneath building Y” or “Results show that a potential source of chemical X exists beneath building Y” suffice?
A. Although academic writers sometimes overqualify their statements to the point of meaninglessness, two points are being made in your sentence: (1) a source may exist beneath the building, and (2) the source might yield chemical X. Your first revision is probably OK, although it is not as clear as the original, but the second revision changes the meaning, since it states that a substance is definitely under the building. In short, the original is clearest.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What verb tense should I use in a construction such as “as of this writing”? “As of this writing, the full data from the 2014 survey were not available, so we use data from the 2011 survey,” or “As of this writing, the full data from the 2014 survey are not available, so we use data from the 2011 survey”? Were sounds better to me until I get to the use, which seems to conflict.
A. “As of this writing” may be taken from the viewpoint of the writer at the time of writing (present) or from the viewpoint of the reader at the time of reading (past). You only need to make up your mind which tense you like best and stick with it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is preferred: We got your back, We’ve got your back, We have your back? It will be used in an informal, conversational piece, but there’s disagreement among my coworkers on what is correct.
A. All are correct informal usages. You have typed them in order from least to most formal.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello there!! I am writing to ask if you could shed some light on the usage of the expression “regard shall be had.” One of my teachers at my translation course uses it constantly as an equivalent to Spanish expressions such as “en función a” and differentiates this use of “regard” from transition linkers such as “regarding” or “with regard to.” Let me provide you with one sentence, which was actually discussed in class: “Regard shall be had to the best interest of the Argentine Audit office.” (This was our translation for the Spanish sentence “Se estará a los intereses de la Auditoria General de la Nación.”) But this expression does not really make sense to me as I haven’t heard or seen it in many contexts. I was wondering if you could provide me with more information about this use of “regard” and whether this expression (“regard shall be had”) can be used in both the active and the passive voice.
A. An idiomatic translation of your Spanish sentence would be “The best interests of the National Audit Office will be considered.” The expression “Regard shall be had” is grammatically and literally correct, but it is a formal construction used only in contracts and other legal writings. Native speakers of English do not write it or say it in a normal context—not even in a scholarly book—unless they are trying to be funny. The meaning is “Someone must pay attention”:
Regard shall be had to the bargaining positions of both parties.
“In regard to” and “regarding” both mean “concerning” or “about”:
With regard to the train ticket, you can buy it at the station.
Regarding the train ticket, you can buy it at the station.
As for the train ticket, you can buy it at the station.
Please note that “regards” in the plural means “good wishes”:
I’m sending this note with regards to your mother.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is changing and to or in the following sentence necessary grammatically? “Ghrelin does not bind and activate GHSR.”
A. This is not actually a grammar issue. Both and and or are grammatical in the sentence. But the truth of your statement may change if you change and to or. “Ghrelin does not bind and activate GHSR” means that ghrelin does not do both actions, but it might bind without activating, and it might activate without binding. “Ghrelin does not bind or activate GHSR” means that ghrelin does not do either action.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A friend and I are disagreeing about the following phrases: “less and less likely” versus “more and more unlikely.” I say they are equal in meaning. He says that only the first one is correct. Your opinion, please.
A. My opinion is that your friend should be asked to supply justification or proof. (Don’t worry—he won’t be able to.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a ms for young adult fiction and this sentence struck me as odd, but I can’t find any reference on CMOS that it’s wrong: “We both have places to be, however much I’d like to stay here with her the rest of the day.” I’m having trouble with “however much.” I commented in the ms that replacing “however much” with “as much as” would flow better, but I’m curious if “however much” is actually grammatically wrong.
A. “However much” is grammatical, but it’s rather formal and educated and perhaps elderly-sounding, and it isn’t popularly used this way anymore. (“However” here doesn’t mean “on the other hand” but “to whatever degree or extent.” Read some dictionary entries on “however” and you’ll get the idea.) If the character in the book is a young person, you would be right to edit it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In your January Q&A, in your response to the question about under commitment and over commitment, you wrote that “it would be best to either close up both or hyphenate both.” I’m trying to eliminate using the word up where it’s unnecessary. It seems to me the vast majority of both up and down uses following verbs are unnecessary. Do you think up is needed in your response?
A. You are right that there’s no need to “close up a deal” or “close up a gate,” but when we bring two words together without a hyphen, we do not call this “closing the words.” So up is appropriate here.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Tense is confusing me, and it’s probably because I’m overanalyzing everything. Please help! Aren’t the two verb tenses saying the same thing? And if so, is paragraph consistency the deciding factor on which tense to use? “The early work focused/focuses on . . .” “Once the cards are / have been put away . . .” “I hope this gives / will give you courage . . .” “As we discuss/discussed in the previous paragraph . . .”
A. Yes, they say the same thing. English is flexible that way. There are subtle differences in tenses that sometimes make one choice better than the other, but this is usually quite obvious and shouldn’t require a lot of analysis. Local consistency usually reads more smoothly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The other day a colleague asked me if it’s permissible to use the expression “a momentum” in a sentence. I told him that momentum is a noncount noun and isn’t normally used with articles (a or the). In fact, after a cursory search, I could not find such a usage online. However, the sentence “we’ve built up such a momentum” sounds correct (or at least not wrong) to my ear. So I later emailed him to say that it’s correct to use momentum without an article, but it isn’t wrong to use an article. Am I being wishy-washy?
A. My own cursory search shows that “a momentum” is correct in many contexts. So yes, you were wishy-washy—but wishy-washy is better than dogmatic when you’re wrong.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]