Q. I am wondering about the order of masculine and feminine nouns in a sentence. For example, is it correct to say, “Bring
your daughters and sons to the event”? This seems awkward to me. It seems more appropriate to put the
masculine first: “Bring your sons and daughters to the event.” Is this correct?
A. It may seem correct, because the masculine pronoun he is conventionally given precedence: He and she were each fined fifty dollars for spitting. But how fair is that? And in any
case daughters and sons are not pronouns. In some contexts it might sound more natural to put the feminine first: “Next Tuesday
the Girls in Science Club will host its annual exhibit. Bring your daughters and your sons to this inspiring event.”
Q. I think this is correct: “We may recognize whether any of our friendships is truly spiritual.”
My boss thinks it should be are: “whether any of our friendships are truly spiritual.” I can’t
find a reference to this in the CMOS except that indefinite pronouns typically are treated as singular when followed by a verb.
A. Any can serve as singular or plural. If more than one of your friendships could be spiritual, then any is plural and you need are. In a sentence where any must be singular, use is: If any of this Twinkie is gone when I get back, there’ll be hell to pay.
Q. Is the word two in the phrase “two codirectors” redundant?
A. It depends on the context. If it’s possible that there are more than two, the word two will clarify. If it’s already established that there are two, it’s redundant.
(Sometimes co- is redundant and can be safely lopped off.)
Q. Lie vs. lay —I’m just not getting it. I’ve read the Q&A submission about
this and the recommended article. And I’m still not sure. Every time lie is used in an example it is always preceded by a person. I want to know if lie can also be used with objects, such as “The adhesive and plates lie flat under the roof shingles.”
A. Of course it can be used with objects. A hat lies on a bed, sits on your head, looks ridiculous, gets lost—we
don’t alter those verb forms when a person lies on a bed, sits on your head, looks ridiculous, or gets
lost. Your sentence is exactly right.
Q. The author insists on using the word “aforementioned,” which I tell him is strictly
lawyers’ jargon. He says that he will abide by CMOS’s arbitration.
A. Thank you for your confidence in us, but I’m afraid CMOS isn’t in the business of banning words. If the author wants to sound lawyerly, then the word is apt;
if he doesn’t, he should rephrase.
Q. Which is CMOS’s position on the use of the word irregardless? Wikipedia states, “The term ‘irregardless’ has begun to
move towards acceptance because incorrect words or grammatical conventions are absorbed by the English language based on common
usage.” This logic bothers me.
A. When a word’s usage becomes uncontroversial or is recognized as standard by dictionaries, Chicago editors
come around to accepting it. For instance, many of us have stopped slashing through the disjunctive adverbs “more
importantly” and “hopefully.” At the moment, however, there’s
no reason to change a perfectly good word like “regardless” to one that is bound
to raise the hackles of many readers.
Q. We recently published a letter from our college president that said, in part, “Together, we will work
to turn hopes and dreams into reality, and address the challenges that lay before us.” A reader has
pointed out that it should be “lie” instead of “lay.”
What do you say?
A. Yes, future challenges lie before us. Unless they are chickens.
Q. Which is correct: “The population is estimated at over 5,000” or “estimated
to be over 5,000”? Both drive me crazy!
A. Estimated at over 5,000, at more than 5,000, to be over 5,000, to exceed 5,000, to be greater than 5,000 . . .
there is rarely a single correct way to express something. But it shouldn’t drive us crazy—it’s
a good thing, right?
Q. This sentence was in a script that I was given for a second round of edits: “The identifying information
you provided is not valid for a new or an existing card member.” The an had been marked for deletion by the previous editor. I would have chosen to retain it because my understanding is that each
adjective used in a series such as this should be accompanied by the article that would be correct if it were used alone.
Which is correct?
A. You can write it either way. Although sticklers may believe that the an must be expressed, it will be easily supplied by readers. English writing is filled with implied constructions. Displaying
every grammatical underpinning would make writing wooden and verbose.
Q. When writing a scholarly article, can you use the word that in this context? “It held [that] a nurse’s discretion is not authority exercised
in the interest of the employer.” My question is whether that should be taken out, because it seems to be an extra word that is not needed.
A. I disagree—that is sometimes an important clarifier. It sets the reader’s expectation for the construction that follows.
Consider “I held the baby was stickier than usual.” The reader might stumble by
mistaking the noun following the verb for a direct object (“I held the baby”),
whereas adding that will prevent misunderstanding (“I held that the baby . . .”).
I would use that in your sentence to smooth the way for the dependent clause, because without it, I expect something like “It
held a nurse’s discretion to be such and such.”