Q. Should the common name of a species from a non-English language be treated as a foreign word and italicized, or should it be left in roman type? I’m thinking of the bird known as a po‘ouli in Hawaii, which is elsewhere called the black-faced honeycreeper. Should po‘ouli be italicized?
A. Though it’s not listed in Merriam-Webster (as of July 5, 2022), the name po‘ouli seems to be relatively well established in recent English-language publications that discuss that bird (sadly reported extinct in 2021); in fact, a Google search for “black-faced honeycreeper” brings up “po‘ouli” first, suggesting it’s more common now than the common English name. So you shouldn’t need italics to refer to a po‘ouli except when using the name as a word (as in the first sentence above and the last sentence in your question).
But if you were to refer to, for example, a Deutscher Schäferhund—the German name for a German shepherd—italics would help signal that the German name would not normally be used in an English-language context (except, for example, to let readers know what that name is).
In sum, sometimes it’s necessary to go beyond the dictionary as a rough gauge of a term’s familiarity in English contexts. For the glottal stop (or ‘okina) in po‘ouli, see CMOS 11.70 (under “Hawaiian”). For advice on capitalizing dog breeds, see this Q&A.
Q. Should there be a comma after “also” when it begins a sentence?
A. Yes, an introductory “also” would normally be followed by a comma. The relevant rule is the one that applies to an introductory adverb like the word yes in the previous sentence (see CMOS 6.34). Note, however, that after an introductory adverbial phrase rather than a single word, the comma can often be omitted, particularly if the phrase is short (see CMOS 6.31). So,
As of late 1999 our Y2K fears still seemed warranted.
but
Also, many of us were new to computers back then.
Q. Hi. I’m working on a label for an image in a printed brochure. The entire label is “bison shoulder blade hoe.” How would you punctuate that—with an en dash (“bison–shoulder blade hoe”)? Or hyphens (“bison-shoulder-blade hoe” or “bison shoulder-blade hoe”)? I was thinking that technically an en dash would be correct according to CMOS 6.80, but that seems too formal and, as CMOS states, unlikely to be noticed by most. There is no room to reword it. Thank you!
Q. Regarding open compounds, would an en dash be correct in “Mr. Potato Head–like head” and “rubbing alcohol–soaked cotton”? Thank you!
A. See CMOS 7.85: “With the exception of proper nouns (such as United States) and compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective (see 7.86), it is never incorrect to hyphenate adjectival compounds before a noun.” The goal of adding such hyphens is to clarify the meaning of the text.
To start with the bison, that example refers to a hoe fashioned from a bison’s shoulder blade. The three relevant terms are bison, shoulder blade, and hoe, so the clearest version is the last: “bison shoulder-blade hoe.”
We agree that an en dash wouldn’t work all that well; in “bison–shoulder blade hoe,” readers would need to recognize “shoulder blade” as a distinct compound before “hoe.” You’d be better off leaving the words open (“bison shoulder blade hoe”), trusting readers to sort out the modifiers without the help of hyphens or dashes. Or you could use two hyphens (“bison-shoulder-blade hoe”), but that doesn’t single out “shoulder blade” either, so the uncluttered open version is better.
As for the second question, it would be hard to improve on “Mr. Potato Head–like head,” where the en dash provides a perfect illustration of the principles covered in CMOS 6.80. And though the en dash is technically correct also in “rubbing alcohol–soaked cotton,” we’d advise rephrasing: “cotton soaked in rubbing alcohol.” Readers then won’t have to mentally sort out the string of modifiers to identify “rubbing alcohol,” a compound that, like “shoulder blade” in the bison example, lacks Mr. Potato Head’s prominent initial caps. Nor would “rubbing-alcohol soaked cotton” work; participles like “soaked” always require a hyphen in that position (see the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.89, sec. 2, under “noun + participle”).
Q. With a compound subject, does the verb number change when the conjunction “and” is replaced by “and then”? For example: “Swimming in the ocean and then running a marathon require/requires great endurance.” I’m told CMOS 5.138 applies and the verb should be plural (“require”). But it seems to me “and then” has combined the two actions into a sequence (as one) which would take the singular “requires.”
A. Two subjects joined by and can sometimes be considered singular. The test is whether the subjects express a single idea or more than one. In your example, what requires endurance is the combined action of swimming in the ocean and running a marathon—a continuous feat of athletic activity. The adverb “then” makes this clear.
But adding “then” won’t always make a plural compound subject singular. Consider the following sentence, in which the subjects clearly take a plural verb: “A bandage and then an ice pack were placed on the wound.” On the other hand, you can write a sentence with a compound-but-singular subject without the help of “then.” For example, “Peanut butter and jelly is the best thing to happen to sandwiches since sliced bread.”
So it’s best to consider such sentences on a case-by-case basis.
Q. In a book with multiple authors, if I cite different chapters (different authors) do I need to repeat the book’s full publication details each time?
A. Not usually. In a work with footnotes or endnotes but no bibliography, for example, you could give the full details for the book the first time it’s cited in a note but shorten them thereafter:
1. Hilton Als, “Homecoming,” in Best American Essays 2021, ed. Kathryn Schulz (Boston: Mariner Books, 2021), 11.
2. Als, “Homecoming,” 15–16.
3. Beth Nguyen, “Apparent,” in Schulz, Best American Essays 2021, 155.
In a work that also has a full bibliography, you could use a shortened citation to refer to the book in the notes even the first time one of its essays is cited. Here’s what the bibliography entry would look like (and note the optional info for the series editor; see also CMOS 14.123):
Schulz, Kathryn, ed. Best American Essays 2021. Series edited by Robert Atwan. Boston: Mariner Books, 2021.
Readers who come across the shortened reference to Schulz, Best American Essays 2021, could consult the bibliography if they needed more details; if there’s no bibliography, they’ll have to track down the initial note (the one with the full details). In either case, the shortened citation gives readers who are in a hurry enough info to locate the source (e.g., via Google or a library).
And though you’re not obligated to cite the individual chapters directly in the bibliography, you could do so using a similar approach. For example, to cite the Als essay—assuming the book is listed in full under Schulz (as shown above)—you could do this:
Als, Hilton. “Homecoming.” In Schulz, Best American Essays 2021, 9–21.
If Schulz is not listed also, you would need to add the full details:
Als, Hilton. “Homecoming.” In Best American Essays 2021, edited by Kathryn Schulz, 9–21. Series edited by Robert Atwan. Boston: Mariner Books, 2021.
Q. For my Chicago author-date reference list following a paper: When listing a journal article, what do I do if there is no page range? I have an article number—does this come into use?
A. To cite an article in a journal that assigns article numbers (also known as citation IDs) in lieu of page numbers—a system that allows for continuous publication of articles independent of a numbered and paginated journal issue—use the number in place of the page range:
Jansuwan, Para, and Kerstin K. Zander. 2022. “Multifunctional Farming as Successful Pathway for the Next Generation of Thai Farmers.” PLOS ONE 17(4): e0267351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267351.
The number for that article is e0267351. If you need to cite a specific page number in the article, many online-only journals (including PLOS ONE) offer a PDF version in addition to (and sometimes instead of) the full-text HTML. The PDF is typically paginated—but starting over at page 1 for each article. You’d cite something on page 8 like this:
(Jansuwan and Zander 2022, 8)
June Q&A
Q. In fiction, when a character reads off a hotel room number, would it be in numbers or spelled out? “Room 305, down the hall.” Or “Room three oh five, down the hall.”
Q. I’m currently editing a novel and having difficulty discerning whether Chicago would spell out temperatures or use numerals. CMOS 9.13 offers this example of the general rule for physical quantities: “Within fifteen minutes the temperature dropped twenty degrees.” But elsewhere in the Manual you use numerals: “the phrase freezing point denotes 32 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius” (CMOS 5.250, under “connote; denote”) and “consisting of two geometric angles that, added together, take up 90 degrees” (CMOS 5.250, under “compliment; complement”). Could you please offer clear simple guidance as to how temperatures should appear in fiction? Thanks!
A. There are at least two principles at work in these two questions.
First, though numbers are often spelled out in dialogue (to help readers understand how they would be spoken), that doesn’t mean numerals are never used. Fictional room 305 would almost never be encountered in the real world as “room three oh five” or “room three hundred five” (or “three hundred and five”), least of all on an actual hotel room door. So “room 305” is the best option, even in dialogue; it’s how room numbers are known.
The second principle is precision. Passing mentions of temperatures, whether in dialogue or narration, would be spelled out in Chicago style: “Brrr, it must be ten degrees below zero out here!” (or “Brrr, it must be ten below out here!”). But freezing points and geometric angles represent exact measurements, and numerals are often the best way of communicating these in ordinary prose.
In dialogue, however, spelling out exact quantities suggests a different kind of precision—another meaning of spell out is to make something clear—so words would work at least as well as numerals:
“Freezing point is zero degrees Celsius,” he announced.
“I can draw a perfect forty-five-degree angle,” she bragged.
You might make an exception, however, if the character is referring to an actual numeral somewhere:
“The thermometer says 32 degrees,” I said, squinting at the display.
That “32” might help the reader imagine the scene, making the dialogue seem more realistic (much as writing “305” in the previous example would).
So numerals can work in dialogue for expressions that would always be written with numerals or when a character is referring to actual numerals; otherwise, it’s usually best to spell them out. In narrative, Chicago’s general rules for numbers apply—subject to editorial discretion. For more on this topic, see “Numbers in Creative Writing” at CMOS Shop Talk.
Q. Current guidelines on French capitalization in CMOS are mostly directed at an all-French context. In the case of an English text with a heavy dose of French proper names, it feels a bit awkward to leave the first word in a name such as “théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin” with a lowercase t. What does the University of Chicago Press do in these cases?
A. The advice in Chicago is supposed to highlight conventions that can be retained when importing bits of French into an English-language context, and capitalization is one of these conventions. But an initial article like le or la is most often changed to an English the, so to use your example, we’d refer to the Théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin (starting the name with a capital T) even if, in a French context, it might be referred to as le théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin (the theater’s website, however, capitalizes that first t).
To take another example, you might refer in English to the Bibliothèque nationale de France or, for short, the Bibliothèque nationale, both of which reflect French capitalization (which is evident in the abbreviation BnF, with a lowercase n). That would normally be Chicago style—that is, we’d retain the lowercase n in English. But it would arguably be clearer to refer to the Bibliothèque Nationale, with a capital N, so that readers unfamiliar with French capitalization would understand where the name begins and ends. Some editors depart from Chicago style for such terms (and apply English-style caps, a.k.a. headline style or title case) for this very reason.
Note, however, that for the title of a book or article or other work, which would normally be set off from the surrounding text by quotation marks or italics, French capitalization would always be retained (see CMOS 11.27). But for the name of a theater or a library or the like, you could make some exceptions for the sake of your readers.
Q. Where should a “praise for . . .” page be located in a novel? Thank you.
A. Praise pages, or brief excerpts from published reviews in support of a book—often a paperback edition of a book first published in hardcover—are usually printed on the opening pages, before the half-title page. Such pages are generally unnumbered, but they count in the overall roman-numeral pagination at the beginning of the book.
Q. Often lately, in drafts I’m editing as well as in emails from colleagues, I’ve seen “below” as an adjective—for instance, “the below example.” This looks and sounds wrong to me. To my further dismay, I just noticed it in an example in my agency’s writing guidance (which I’m partly responsible for updating). CMOS 5.250 doesn’t address this matter, but when I searched the Manual for “the below,” there were no results. Merriam-Webster lists “below” as an adjective and shows it being used before a noun (“the below list”)—but I’ve been told Merriam-Webster presents common usage rather than good usage. The American Heritage Dictionary, which I understand is more prescriptive, lists “below” only as an adverb or preposition. Before I do battle about “below” in our writing guidance, I’d like to know your opinion. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
A. We agree that “the example below” would generally be preferable to “the below example”; the absence of below as an adjective in at least one major dictionary is a good piece of evidence in favor of such a preference. The OED provides more evidence in your favor. That dictionary includes the adjectival sense, but with this label: “rare in comparison with ABOVE adj.” And it defines both below and above as adjectives only in the sense of “below-mentioned” and “above-mentioned” (or “-listed,” “-described,” etc.).
This accords with how below and above as adjectives are both defined in Merriam-Webster, so we can conclude that they’re a sort of shorthand for adjectival compounds like “below-mentioned” and “above-mentioned”—in which below and above, it should be noted, function not as adjectives but as adverbs that modify the participle mentioned.
(The words below and above are also used in this way as nouns—as in “refer to the below” or “none of the above.” Both the OED and Merriam-Webster include entries for these terms as nouns, and the OED makes the same note as it does for the adjective that below is rare in this sense relative to above.)
Why below seems less comfortable than above as an adjective (or as a noun) is a matter for linguists. In the meantime, you might insist that “the below example” is an uncommon usage that’s likely to strike the wrong note for at least some readers, as it did for you. Fortunately, it’s an easy problem to fix (i.e., simply move “below” so that it follows the noun).
(Feel free to cite the answer above if it will help you to make your case.)
Q. What margins should I use?
A. One-inch margins all around is a typical default setting for manuscripts, whether you’re using 8.5 × 11–inch or A4 paper, except for any headers and footers, which are typically half an inch from the edge of the page. One inch is equivalent to 2.54 centimeters or 6 picas; half an inch would be 1.27 cm or 3 picas. That’s what a US English installation of MS Word shows when the measurement options under File > Options > Advanced > Display are changed from inches to centimeters or picas, respectively.
These default settings are fine to use in most cases. But if you’re writing for a publisher, consult your publisher’s guidelines (and see “How to Format a Novel for Submission” at CMOS Shop Talk). If you’re writing a dissertation or thesis or other type of paper for school, consult our paper-formatting tip sheets, which are modeled on the examples in Kate L. Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (9th ed.).
Q. When citing the recto and verso side of a folio page, I was curious as to which abbreviation was correct: fol. 1r–v, or fols. 1r–v. I had presumed it was the former because one folio has a recto and verso side, but I found a lot of precedent for the plural in publications from the University of Chicago Press and other reputable academic presses (including Cambridge and Oxford). Is one of these options preferred, or are both correct? Thanks for your help with this.
A. The word folio in the context of book pages refers to the leaf of paper, including both sides, so you’re right that “fol. 1r–v” would make sense. But folio can also mean “page,” so “fols. 1r–v” could also make sense. If we had to side with one, however, it would be the singular. The plural would then be reserved for multiple leaves:
fol. 1r (the recto of folio 1, or one page)
fol. 1r–v (the recto and verso of folio 1, or two pages)
fols. 1r–2v (the recto and verso sides of folios 1 and 2, or four pages)
For an example of this usage, see the annotations for this ninth-century parchment manuscript at the Bodleian Library. And though you’ve found examples out there that depart from this usage, a Google search comparing “fol. 1r–v” with “fols. 1r–v” (and the like, with 2r–v, 3r–v, etc.) suggests that the singular is significantly more common.