Q. In running text, should “at” be included before an Instagram or Twitter handle? For example, “To learn more, tweet her @username” or “To learn more, tweet her at @username”?
A. Treat the handle as an ordinary noun and include the preposition, redundant as it may seem: “tweet her at @username.” If you were to read your example out loud, you could either emphasize the second “at” (“tweet her at at username”) or ignore it (“tweet her at username”). The first option will make it clear that you are referring to a handle as such. But a handle as handle is a special case. When you mention @Rihanna’s latest creations or an entry in @MerriamWebster—which would be read out loud as “Rihanna’s latest creations or an entry in Merriam-Webster”—the symbol is merely a tool for facilitating platform interactivity. Ignoring the at sign relative to the surrounding text allows for maximum flexibility. And these days, as any old hippie will tell you, that’s where it’s really @.
Q. This sentence has a dual subject but the author has a singular verb, which sounds right to the ear but can’t be correct, right? Here is the sentence: “Building and extending sewer systems requires large capital investments.” Should it read “require” to match the “building and extending” or can those two things be somehow considered as a single thing? Thank you!
A. A compound subject usually takes a plural verb, but not if the components in the subject are being considered as a single unit or concept. The line is subjective and may depend on context:
Kneading and stretching dough isn’t as easy as it looks.
Kneading and stretching dough are two separate but related skills.
The first example considers the two activities together, as a related set of actions; the second considers these same actions separately.
Nor does the choice of verb depend on the additional noun, which has merely been elided before the conjunction. Even if the noun is repeated, the considerations are the same:
Kneading dough and stretching it isn’t as easy as it looks.
And if you reduce the example to the gerunds, either of the following would also work, depending on context and intended meaning:
Kneading and stretching takes practice.
Kneading and stretching take practice.
In your example, “requires” is probably fine, but if the context suggests that the investments may apply to building and extending in separate stages, your safest choice would be “require.” And if there’s any doubt about the author’s intention, choose the plural.
Q. I am editing a brief in which the author has used “and/or” multiple times. I know that this term should be avoided, but I’m not exactly sure why. Is it because it’s confusing and ambiguous? What is The Chicago Manual of Style’s stance?
A. CMOS, in chapter 5, says to “avoid this Janus-faced term” (5.250, s.v. “and/or”). Janus-faced means duplicitous—in other words, appearing to say two contradictory things simultaneously. The problem is the slash, which is potentially ambiguous; for example, readers might choose to interpret “x and/or y” as meaning either x and y or just y—but not x alone. In fact, “x and/or y” is usually intended to mean “x or y, or both,” and where that is the case, section 5.250 recommends writing exactly that (take a sleeping pill or a warm drink, or both). In many cases, however, “or” alone would make the meaning perfectly clear. For example, “no cats or dogs allowed” means that no combination of cats or dogs—or cats and dogs—is allowed. In formal prose, including legal writing, such considerations of the precisely intended meaning are important. In casual prose, “and/or” can occasionally serve as a useful shorthand: bring your own beer and/or wine. No one will fail to understand the meaning of that.
Q. Would you use “less” or “fewer” with “CO₂ emissions”? To me, “emissions” seems like a measurable, uncountable substance, so I would say “less.” However, a quick search on Google Ngrams shows “fewer emissions” is more common. Which is correct? Or should it be “lower” instead? And if so, why?
A. Your preference for “less” makes a lot of sense. In formal writing, however, “fewer” has long been preferred with a plural noun, no matter how difficult it might be to count. According to that preference, if it takes a plural verb, you would use “fewer”: so, fewer CO₂ emissions, but less CO₂ (carbon dioxide is a mass—or noncount—noun: CO₂ is; CO₂ emissions are). It may be helpful to consider the case of “data.” Even though “data” doesn’t look like a plural, you would write “less data” or “fewer data” depending on whether you consider “data” as a mass noun (as in common usage) or as a plural (as in the sciences).
We had a lot less data to support our hypothesis than we wanted. [data as mass noun]
but
The second group of researchers returned fewer data than the first. [data as a plural noun]
The latter usage—including the use of “fewer”—is supported by the AMA Manual of Style (10th ed., sec. 7.8.2). In other words, the data support(s) “fewer emissions.”
The alternative “lower emissions” can also work. Unlike temperatures or costs, which can be higher or lower in the singular or the plural, we don’t normally talk of a higher or lower emission singular. But we do talk of higher or lower emissions plural—where “level(s)” is understood. And an Ngram comparison of “fewer,” “less,” and “lower” as adjectives modifying “emissions” (adding “_ADJ” to a term filters out other parts of speech) shows that “lower emissions” is more common than the other two phrases combined.
In sum, “fewer” is considered to be correct, but “lower” is a good alternative—and well established. Meanwhile, though “less emissions” seems like a rational choice (it’s unambiguous, and it has the advantage of being the shortest option), avoid it if your goal is to satisfy any sticklers.
Q. Hello. Is it appropriate to use ’s for “is”? For example: John’s running every day.
A. It’s a little informal for expository prose, where it would be better to write “John is running every day.” But in quoted speech or dialogue in a story or a novel, the contraction might be the best choice for representing how the sentence was actually spoken or how it might be spoken in real life. In sum, Chicago’s not going to tell you that you can’t use it. Ba dum tss.
Q. Does “plus” function like “and” in making two nouns a plural subject? For example, would you say, “This idea plus others like it are gaining traction” or “is gaining traction”?
A. “Plus,” when it’s not acting as a noun (that’s a plus) or as an adjective (a plus sign), can function as either a preposition or a conjunction. As a preposition, it means “in addition to” and takes a singular verb: five plus six equals eleven. As a conjunction, it means “and” and takes a plural verb: a banana plus a loaf of bread were on the table. If the subjects are being considered collectively, use a singular verb; otherwise, opt for the plural. In your example, the ideas alluded to in the subject are gaining traction individually, so “plus” is conjunctive and “are” is the better choice. If you can keep track of all these distinctions, you get an A plus (where “plus” is functioning as an adjective to modify the letter grade).
Q. Hi. My question has to do with whether a new entry in the 17th edition was accidental or deliberate. Paragraph 8.185 includes this sentence: “ ‘Aladdin’ is arguably the most well-known tale in A Thousand and One Nights.” I’m curious to know if this sentence simply slipped through or if Chicago defends the use of “most well-known”? I ask because Philip Corbett, standards editor for the New York Times, ran a blog called After Deadline as a teaching tool to point out grammatical and stylistic missteps that made it to print. He often called out writers for using “most well-known” in place of “best-known”: “The superlative form of the adverb ‘well’ is ‘best.’ So there’s no reason to describe something as ‘the most well-known’—make it ‘the best-known’ ” (After Deadline, August 4, 2008).
A. For newspapers, especially those that are published in print, concision is crucial, so changing “most well-known” to “best-known” as a matter of policy makes good sense. (Nothing compares to After Deadline for its combination of practical, field-tested advice and journalistic wisdom.) But where space is not at such a premium, is “best-known” necessarily an improvement over “most well-known”?
“Well-known” is an established compound; it’s listed in Merriam-Webster (where it’s defined as “fully or widely known”). The meaning of “well-known” is therefore well known (Chicago drops the hyphen for most compound adjectives after the noun). So “the most well-known author” arguably loses just a little by being changed to “the best-known author.” “Best-known” is OK, but it isn’t in Merriam-Webster.
“Well-known” isn’t the only well-known “well-” compound. Consider “well-rounded”: “best-rounded” isn’t a great alternative for “most well-rounded.” And what about “best-heeled”? Some work better than others, so it’s probably best to consider these on a case-by-case basis. And in the case of “most well-known,” our editors apparently chose to leave well enough alone.
Q. The emigrate/immigrate distinction has been the subject of differing opinions in our office. Each time a case arises, we consult CMOS 5.250 and come up with different interpretations. Editing the following sentence, for example, we changed “immigrate” to “emigrate”: Justice Abella was born in a displaced persons camp in Stuttgart, Germany, and with her family immigrated to Canada in 1950. Several of us argue that it’s “immigrate” because she’s going to Canada; others say “emigrate” because she’s leaving a past home. Please let us know which is correct.
A. In the example you cite, either term is correct. To emphasize Justice Abella’s departure from Germany, choose emigrate; to emphasize the move to Canada, choose immigrate. In the former case, “from Germany” is understood:
Justice Abella was born in a displaced persons camp in Stuttgart, Germany, and with her family emigrated [from Germany] to Canada in 1950.
You could avoid the issue altogether by choosing “migrate,” but that term is more often applied in relation to movement between regions (e.g., south to north) than to specific countries.
Q. Doesn’t “The US is the second-largest carbon dioxide emitter after China” make it sound like the US is actually the third-largest carbon dioxide emitter? I see these formulations, which include [number] plus [superlative] and a direct comparison, often, and they seem confusing. Wouldn’t it make more sense to say “The US is the largest carbon dioxide emitter after China” or “The US is the second-largest carbon dioxide emitter; China is the largest”?
A. You’re right: if you think about it for more than three or four seconds, that sentence is less than perfectly unambiguous. But no one would describe the third-largest emitter as the second-largest emitter after the second-largest emitter! This is an example of a convenient and harmless shorthand—where “after” means something like “trailing only.” And it’s a helpful shorthand: not only is it concise, but it also prevents the momentary ambiguity inherent in your first solution (“The US is the largest carbon dioxide emitter . . .”). Note that a comma, though typically omitted from “nth-largest . . . after . . .” constructions, would provide useful clarification before the prepositional phrase “after China”; before the participial phrase “trailing only China,” such a comma would be required (see CMOS 6.30).
Q. I’m troubled by this sentence: “She combed her hair, brushed her teeth, and was putting on her lipstick when the phone rang.” I think it should be reworded since the list does not have parallel construction. My friend disagrees. Is it correct as is, or is there a simple fix?
A. You are correct. In a series of verb phrases, any auxiliary verb must apply equally to all of the phrases. So that “was”—an auxiliary verb that helps to create the past-progressive tense—is a problem. You can fix it by adding a conjunction to break up the series: “She combed her hair and brushed her teeth and was putting on her lipstick when the phone rang.” CMOS 5.245 covers this issue (minus the lipstick). For more on progressive tenses, see 5.135.