Q. Is it really necessary to include “as” before “per”?
For example, “Client has requested, as per original agreement, two hard copies of all reports.”
Since “per” means “according to,”
can’t we just delete the unnecessary (and wordy-looking) “as”?
Thank you, great gurus, for your wisdom!
A. It is not necessary to add “as.” In fact, it used to be considered incorrect,
and sticklers still feel superior when they slash through it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am having a disagreement with a fellow editor. I say either of these is fine: “It will assist you
to identify the skills you already possess.” “It will assist you in identifying
the skills you already possess.” She says the former is incorrect and the latter should be used. What’s
the deal?
A. The first sentence is ambiguous, so the second is better. The meaning of the first sentence could be either “This
will help you identify skills,” or “Identifying your skills will help you.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a translation of an ancient Chinese text, the Dao De Jing, which is largely concerned with
describing the ideal “Daoist sage ruler.” The translator has chosen to use the
generic masculine pronoun because in the historical context of the text, rulers were exclusively men. (For instance, “Of
the best of all rulers, people will only know that he exists.”) I’m inclined to
accept this argument, but should I be concerned about gender bias?
A. Although most of us are rooting against gender bias, it probably doesn’t help to write it out of our
history. If you’re concerned about the effect the language will have on impressionable readers, work
with the translator to include a note about gender issues in that historical context.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If Susan has a master’s degree in publishing, does Betty have master’s degrees
in publishing and literature?
A. I have no idea, but I can tell you that the question is styled correctly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is there a good tutorial program for learning/studying The Chicago Manual of Style?
A. “CMOS” for Dummies? Not that I know of, although it wouldn’t surprise me. But try not to be intimidated. Unless you’re a technical writer, you can ignore some of the chapters and use them only for occasional reference. The goal is to know what’s in the book and how to find it, not to memorize it. Start by skimming chapter 3 (on manuscript preparation and editing and proofreading), and if it applies to the work you’re doing, read it more intently. Then look through chapters 6 and 7, on punctuation and spelling (read the detailed chapter tables of contents first). Again, the important thing is to educate yourself on the issues, not necessarily all the various solutions. Scan through chapter 8 (on names and terms), so you’ll know when you need to use it. (You will surely linger over “Titles of Works.”) Read the introduction to chapter 9 (on numbers), and if it holds your interest, keep reading. Look at the overall book TOC and all the chapter TOCs to see what issues apply to your own work. When you’re feeling strong, tackle chapters 14 and 15 on source citation—where the real copy editors hang out. After that, just dip in when you encounter things you need to know. To some, the book’s a page-turner—you may find yourself browsing, especially if you have the online edition.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am currently editing chapters for eight engineers who are writing a technical book. Several use the style of writing that
I call the “we” style, for example, “We should now add this
code in the command line.” I am trying to direct them in the direction of talking to the reader using
the “you” style, by rephrasing the same sentence to say, “You
should add this code to your command line.” Or, even better “Add this code to
your command line.” My problem is that some of them are balking at this tone and want to know what I’m
basing this change on. I have tried to find some definite rules regarding this, but so far have not. Can you give me some
references regarding this?
A. It’s true that “we” is somewhat precious and dated for
a technical book, but it’s not wrong to use it, if that’s the voice your writers
want to project. If they won’t bow to your authority, then just take a vote and proceed accordingly.
If the publisher has done similar books in the past, you might look to those books as models.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If I am referring to the year 1900, do I say “at the turn of the nineteenth century” or “at the turn of the twentieth century”? Most of the writers I’ve edited use the latter, but I’ve always thought the former makes more sense, in that the nineteenth century is doing the actual “turning.” I’ve asked other editors and no one seems to know, so I’ve always edited around this.
A. Unfortunately, as you have discovered, both phrases are ambiguous. Instead, write “at the beginning of the twentieth century,” or “at the end of the nineteenth century,” or “in the years around 1900.” “The turn of the century” is useful only when the context makes it obvious which turn you’re talking about. See CMOS 9.32.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When asking someone “how are you”? Is it appropriate to use “I
am good” in lieu of “I am well”?
A. “I’m good” is the currently popular slang reply, and “I’m
well” is the formal reply. “I’m fine”
is a nice compromise, if you don’t want to sound ignorant or stuffy—and don’t
mind sounding middle-aged.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work in a law office where they regularly use terms like “via email” or “via the US mail.” I had been taught that “via” actually means “by way of” not “by means of.” In other words, we travel from one city to another city via a certain route; we send a message by email. I realize that English usage is an evolutionary process and that common but otherwise incorrect grammar ultimately can become “correct.” Is that what has happened to via?
A. Any dictionary—even a Latin one—will tell you that “by means of” is one definition of “via.” You seem to be suggesting that words must be used literally in order to be used correctly, but it’s never been incorrect to use words figuratively. Even ancient writers of Latin understood that “road” or “way” can also mean “method,” and they used the word “via” accordingly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. As an editor of regulatory documents, I routinely come across sentences in which the subject is an inanimate object but the
verb denotes something only a person can do. Examples are “this document analyzes the hazards”
and “the analysis considers the environmental impacts.” Does this type of thing
have a name? Inappropriate anthropomorphism or personification? Is there a rule I can cite when explaining to the author why
I have suggested rewording the sentence?
A. Why reword it? Documents do analyze and present and consider. They discuss and bemoan and mangle and make mockeries of things.
There’s no rule that restricts writers to using the literal meanings of words. If it gets to the point
where the documents are ordering in pizza, consider rewording.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]