Q. Are phrases like “The more the merrier” and “The bigger the better” sentences, despite not having a verb?

A. In CMOS 6.50, on commas with “the more,” “the less,” and the like, you’ll find one of those as an example that illustrates when a comma is unnecessary: “The more the merrier.”

As you suggest, that’s a phrase. But when it’s standing alone like that (with an initial capital and a terminal period), it functions as a type of sentence—one that’s elliptical, meaning that one or more words have been left unstated but will be understood by readers, sometimes with the help of context. The adjective elliptical comes from the Greek verb elleipein, “to leave out,” as does the noun ellipsis, which can refer either to an omission of words or to the series of dots (. . .) that can mark such an omission.

If you supply the missing words in your two examples (as we’ve done below, choosing a generic reading for both), it will be clearer that they work as complete sentences, though with some inversion:

The more there is, the merrier it will be. (= It will be merrier to the degree that there is more.)

The bigger it is, the better it will be. (= It will be better to the degree that it is bigger.)

Note the commas, which become necessary when words like the ones underlined above are expressed rather than implied: “The more people we invite to our grammar party, the merrier it will be.”

For the related phenomenon of elliptical sentences like Why? and Yes, see CMOS 5.101. For ellipses (the dots), see 12.59–69.

Q. Is the usage of “kindly” in “We would like to kindly ask you . . .” or “This is to kindly remind you to . . .” correct? My understanding is that “kindly” sounds rather rude here, as we are describing ourselves as kind and generous.

A. According to the entry for “kindly” in Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (Oxford, 2022), using that word to refer to the person making the request instead of simply using it like please is a “linguistic misstep,” one that’s typical of “airlinese”—as in “We kindly ask you to take your seats” instead of “Kindly take your seats.”

Misstep or not, it can be rude to praise oneself, as you suggest, so we agree that it’s best to avoid kindly except as a substitute for please. Your sentences could be revised as follows:

We would like to kindly ask you . . .
becomes
Kindly . . .

This is to kindly remind you to . . .
becomes
Please remember to . . .

(To any fans of airlinese out there, kindly accept our most humble apologies for this answer.)

Q. I’m struggling over what to do with this sentence: “The issue was not only the lack of funding for the new sports center, it was also about who gets to participate in city government.” I was told that this is a comma splice and that I should use a semicolon instead, but doesn’t the part before the comma depend on what follows the comma, making the comma the right choice? Please help!

A. That first part is in fact an independent rather than a dependent clause, which may be easier to see if you add a sentence between the two parts of your example:

The issue was not only the lack of funding for the new sports center. Besides, that was old news. It was also about who gets to participate in city government.

But a semicolon can seem unnecessarily formal, and a period might be too abrupt. If you’d prefer not to use either of those, and you’re worried about being accused of comma splicing (though your original sentence is a borderline case and perfectly acceptable for most types of writing), then consider omitting the second subject and adding but to make a compound predicate:

The issue was not only the lack of funding for the new sports center but also who gets to participate in city government.

(Note that simply adding but to your original example, after the comma, might seem like an option, but the result would be awkward.)

See also CMOS 6.49, on the use of commas with sentences that feature correlative conjunctions of the type not . . . but and not only . . . but also.

Q. Is it mandatory to use a person’s full name the first time it is mentioned in the body of the text, and to use only the last name in subsequent mentions?

A. For most people with a first and a last name, it’s usually best to do what you suggest as a courtesy to your readers. But names come in so many varieties that we tend to avoid making absolute rules about them. For example, a passing mention of Shakespeare’s Hamlet wouldn’t need to include “William.” And there are those who have only one name, like Aristotle, or who are known by one name, like Elizabeth I (who is only sometimes referred to as Elizabeth Tudor, as in studies that highlight the Tudor dynasty and its lineage).

If you’re using author-date citation style, there’s another exception to consider: When citing an article or other source in parentheses, you’d normally include only the author’s last name even if that author hasn’t been mentioned elsewhere in the text: (Smith 2024). Interested readers can go to the corresponding entry in the reference list for the full form of the name. But if you’re referring to the author rather than the work (in what is sometimes called a narrative citation), it’s normally best to include the first name at first mention: “According to Ivy Smith (2024), . . . Smith, however, does not . . .”

For the difference between “Author (Year),” which refers to a person, and “(Author Year),” which refers to a work, see CMOS 13.122.

Q. I am writing a review of an exhibition I went to see. I am briefly quoting the titles of sections from the exhibition that were written on the walls and I am not sure how to cite them. I also don’t know if they are only needed in footnotes or in a bibliography as well. I have five and they are all from the same exhibition.

A. In Chicago style, you don’t need to formally cite words written on walls or on labels or cards or elsewhere at an art exhibition. Assuming you’ve supplied full details for the exhibition itself (as in the text or in a note; a bibliography entry is usually unnecessary for live events, though you may list an exhibition catalog there), and assuming also that your text makes it clear that the words are part of that exhibition, you are free to quote section titles and the like without additional citations.

You can also usually discuss specific works of art that are featured in the exhibition without additional citations, as long as you’ve identified these works sufficiently in your text (usually by the name of the creator and a title or description, at the very least). But if you’re a student, check with your instructor, who may expect you to cite individual artworks in your notes or to list them in a bibliography, or both. For examples, see CMOS 14.133. For citing exhibition catalogs, see 14.134. For titles of artworks and exhibitions, see 8.200 and 8.204.

Q. Hi, I was wondering if you could clarify whether a DOI is required for citations of print sources when one is available.

A. According to CMOS 13.14, authors don’t need to record DOIs for print resources “unless their publisher or discipline requires it.” And because most readers will assume that a DOI in a citation means you’re referring to something online, it’s generally best not to include one for a work you consulted in print unless you’ve also consulted the online version. (It’s unlikely that a source that’s available only in print will have a DOI.)