Q. I have scoured the internet looking for an answer: How are plurale tantum [plural only] words like “pants,” “scissors,” “sunglasses,” and “manners” constructed using the suffix “-less”? Would it be “pantless” or “pantsless,” “scissorless” or “scissorsless,” and so on? I can find arguments for either construction for each term. I’m hoping there’s a grammar rule (somewhere) that will guide me toward a definitive answer. If the “s” is retained before the suffix, most words become awkward to say the least (“trousersless,” “slacksless,” “shearsless,” etc.). Is it simply arbitrary? Based on popular usage? Something else?

A. We can’t cite a rule, but we know that the suffix “-less” almost always gets added to the singular form of a noun. And we could guess that this fact would influence how “-less” might be added to a word like “pants.”

In other words, if “shoeless” (no shoes), “witless” (no wits), “childless” (no children), and “toothless” (no teeth) are all standard, then “pantless” (no pants) would seem like a reasonable option. And that’s what the OED has (“pantless,” not “pantsless”).

But compared with the standard singular forms “shoe,” “wit,” and so on, “pant” as a singular noun is kind of rare. You might consider ignoring the OED in this case and going with “pantsless” instead.

Some of the other words you mention may work better without the “s.” “Scissorless” and “trouserless” seem OK, maybe because the adjectives of those words are commonly spelled without an “s,” as in scissor kick* and trouser pocket (the adjective form of “pants” more often retains the “s”: pants pocket). And “mannerless” is in Merriam-Webster and the OED.

“Sunglassless” and “sunglassesless,” however, both look like mistakes, and “slack(s)less” and “shear(s)less” also have problems (starting with the fact that slack and shear have multiple meanings). Rewriting would be best (e.g., without sunglasses, slacks, or shears). Or try a hyphen (e.g., “sunglasses-less”).

In sum, approach these terms on a case-by-case basis, and don’t settle for an awkward or ambiguous result.

* Merriam-Webster records only “scissors kick” (as of October 2024), but that spelling has become less common than “scissor kick” in published books in recent years, as this n-gram from Google suggests.

Q. Could CMOS weigh in on the proper placement of punctuation in relation to quotation marks when the quoted material is an abbreviation that will be used in the document? For example: This agreement is entered into between Corporation X and Agency Y, individually “Party,” and collectively, the “Parties.” The typical rules would suggest the above punctuation is correct, but the abbreviations are technically “party” and “parties” (not “party,” and “parties.”). Would these be exceptions?

A. No, those wouldn’t be exceptions. In a style like Chicago’s that puts commas and periods inside closing quotation marks, the punctuation is assumed to belong to the text and not to the quotation. This convention, though it has its drawbacks (your question reveals the main one), has the advantage of allowing commas and periods to stay with the words they follow instead of getting separated by the width of the quotation mark. Consider also that there’s no such thing as a party, or parties. (with the comma or period attached).

For a more detailed look at this convention (and its history relative to the alternative British practice, which does put periods and commas outside closing quotation marks, though not in every context), see “Commas and Periods with Quotation Marks,” at CMOS Shop Talk.

Q. Hi. I have a question regarding the use of the em dash between two independent sentences (as in CMOS 6.91, last example). I understand that the dash can be used in place of a colon when introducing a list; however, when it is used to separate two independent sentences, as a semicolon would be used, it reads as a comma splice (as in your example): “The number of new cases has been declining—last week’s daily average was the lowest since January.” Wouldn’t a semicolon or period be better than an em dash in that example?

A. You’re right that a semicolon or a period might be better than a dash in that example. But we wanted our examples to show that a dash really can be used in place of just about any mark of punctuation. And don’t worry about creating a comma splice—only commas can do that.

It might help to show the same sentence but with parentheses:

The number of new cases has been declining (last week’s daily average was the lowest since January).

If you agree that those parentheses work, then consider that dashes and parentheses are usually interchangeable (though parentheses are not as abrupt as dashes, and they always come in pairs; see also CMOS 6.101).

But that doesn’t mean anything goes. Because dashes are so flexible, they tend to be overused. When in doubt, edit them out.

Q. Several years ago, radio station WBUR in Boston began crediting its listeners with the words “brought to you by the listeners OF WBUR.” I have found it most disturbing and would appreciate it if CMOS were to dive into this controversy. Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs does not address this since the example is of a noun form of a verb. Thank you.

A. Whereas it’s true that we listen to something, never of, that doesn’t mean we can’t be listeners of whatever it is we’re listening to. The form “listeners to” might even be an example of hypercorrection—that is, a pairing of “to” with “listeners” may stem from a mistaken idea that a noun must be used in the same way as any corresponding verb. The phrase “listeners of WBUR” simply means “WBUR’s listeners” (see CMOS 5.23).

That said, both pairings are common (as this n-gram from Google Books suggests), and we’d be inclined to accept either one. In WBUR’s defense, however, that of in the example you quote is arguably the better choice; “brought to you by the listeners to WBUR” might be misheard, however fleetingly, as meaning that listeners are bringing something to WBUR. They are, but that’s not the intended meaning of those words.

Q. Should the names of childhood games be capitalized in prose? For example, kick the can, ghost in the graveyard, and so on. These games are not listed in Merriam-Webster, so my initial thought is to leave them lowercase, but I’d love to hear what you think!

A. Capitalization is usually reserved for brand names, so your initial thought to use lowercase for the names of generic children’s games like kick the can and ghost in the graveyard (or tag or follow the leader or tic-tac-toe, etc.) aligns with what we’d recommend (see CMOS 8.192).

Q. Does CMOS have a preference on “said” versus “stated” for attribution?

A. “Said” is more neutral than “stated” and would be the better choice in almost any context; “stated” is more definitive and sounds more formal. As a general principle, if any verb other than “said” is used, make sure it suits the context. For example, “wrote” could work for a written source, and “claimed” might be the right choice for something either written or said that hasn’t been verified (or that may be false). But try not to use a word like “sighed” that isn’t compatible with speech (see CMOS 12.41).

Q. If an author insists on using a widely attributed quote whose source cannot be confirmed, how should I cite it? Should I cite it at all? Or should I simply note in the running text that the quote is “widely attributed to such and such”?

A. Your last idea is the best one. In general, if the source of a quotation can’t be confirmed, this fact should be stated in the text that introduces it instead of being relegated to a note, where readers might miss it. The phrase “widely attributed” should make it clear that the attribution isn’t definitive; however, if the author can provide one or more sources that back up this claim, those could be (and in an academic work should be) provided in a note.