Q. When we first use an acronym or initialism like FMCSA we put it in parentheses after the spelled-out version. If the spelled-out
version is possessive, does the acronym/initialism need to be possessive too? Example: the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s
(FMCSA’s) new rule or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) new rule?
A. This question is surely one of the most frequently asked; in the next edition I hope we will issue an explicit ban on this
construction. In the meantime, please reword the sentence to avoid the possessive: the new rule issued by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is correct (or are both correct): the Office of Capital Markets (OCM) or the Office of Capital Markets (“OCM”)? The second just doesn’t seem right to me, but my boss keeps correcting my work by changing it to that.
A. The quotation marks are unconventional, and they aren’t Chicago style (see CMOS 10.3), but if your boss really, really wants them, it probably won’t kill you to use them.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I know there are abbreviations such as n.p. and n.d. indicating missing info about the publisher and year of publication. Is there any abbreviation indicating that the name of
a translator of a particular book is missing?
A. How about t.n.i.m. (translator name is missing)? Maybe not. Try “Translator unknown” or “Unknown
translator” or any other wording that makes sense to you.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My significant other and I have a disagreement: he maintains that in referring to a roomful of nurses, we may say “a
roomful of R.N.” on the grounds that we do not need to pluralize R.N. as R.N.s, although he does concede
that one would not say “a roomful of nurse.” (“Room full”
perhaps irrationally connotes to me a more ominous density of nurses than “roomful.”)
We have been arguing about this for going-on ten years and would like to settle the question in order to move on to some new
dispute.
A. To my ear, a roomful of R.N. sounds far more ominous than a roomful of RNs. But as you can see, Chicago style regularly pluralizes
abbreviations and skips the pesky periods: “a roomful [or room full] of RNs.”
Maybe you can argue about the periods from now on.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m wondering about the ampersand versus and in journal titles. There are two examples where Chicago uses and for a journal whose title online has an ampersand (Past and Present; Trends in Ecology and Evolution). Is it fair to extrapolate from these examples that Chicago would recommend replacing the ampersand in citations of journals?
A. It is. Since there is no easy way to check whether an author’s choices are random or scrupulous, conventionally
editors have chosen one style or the other to impose throughout. Chicago prefers and. Even now that it’s possible to check online, we think it’s more expedient to
choose one style and be consistent, given the amount of research it would entail to check the style of and in every title, not to mention the complication that a publication may itself use one style on its jacket or in a logo and
another in running text.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am in the process of editing and updating a publication my department produces. Before reprinting, we must get approval
from our funders, and they have requested we remove all the contractions because it is a formal publication with a safety
message they want to see firmly reinforced. The original creator of the publication argues that we should keep the contractions
because the intended audience is children, who have a wide variety of literacy abilities. He believes it will be off-putting
to children if the style is too formal, and that a more conversational style is more likely to resonate with this particular
audience. What do you suggest? Are there any guidelines on exceptions to the general rule of avoiding contractions in formal
writing?
A. A complete avoidance of contractions is common only in the most formal writing (think wedding invitations, or speeches before
the queen). Even scholarly books freely use contractions in sentences that would sound stuffy and pompous otherwise. Your
funders have a point in that it’s traditional to get attention in safety matters by means of a firm
“Do not,” but the writer’s approach merits serious consideration.
If there is any room for compromise, the best solution might be a conversational tone that maintains uncontracted phrases
in the most important messages.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Some guides say not to begin a sentence with an abbreviation unless it’s Mr., Dr., and the like. How about St. Paul? Do you recommend spelling it out?
A. Since Chicago doesn’t approve of abbreviations in running text, we would generally not begin a sentence
with one, but we too make exceptions for words like Mr., Dr., and (yes) St., and would not spell them out. Acronyms, on the other hand, seem fine for launching a sentence, especially when the effort
to avoid one looks worse.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Could you tell me the correct way to pluralize an acronym when it is the first instance and the definition that appears before
the acronym is plural? Here is an example and the two options that have been suggested to me: configuration items (CIs), or
configuration items (CI)s. I think the first because it looks better, but others disagree.
A. Yes, the first is the conventional way to make an acronym plural; the second is (forgive me) bizarre.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am proofing an engineering document. There is a section titled “System Engineering Instruction Team
(SEIT).” However, this acronym is already defined in the body of a previous section. The argument is
that the section in question should simply be titled “SEIT.” However, I don’t
think the section title should be reduced to “SEIT” because the reader may not
know what SEIT means upon first glance at the table of contents. I say it’s okay to redefine the acronym
if it suddenly becomes the title of a major section. Is it ever okay to redefine an acronym after it has already been defined?
A. Of course it’s okay! What good is a rule that says you can’t help the reader
when it seems like a good idea? Redefine an acronym whenever a reader might reasonably have forgotten it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a military memoir with frequent use of acronyms such as IED (improvised explosive device), DFAC (dining hall),
MWR (morale, welfare, and recreation). Should these terms be spelled out throughout the manuscript, or is it appropriate to
use the acronym after it has been described in a parenthetical on the first reference?
A. By all means, use the acronyms. The whole point of acronyms is to provide a shorthand form for unwieldy terms after they’ve
been introduced. If you find you don’t actually need a particular acronym after defining the term, reconsider
whether you need to introduce the acronym in the first place. Conversely, if you think your acronyms will be so familiar to
your readers that they don’t need expansion, skip the explanations. Finally, if you’re
worried that the number of acronyms will overwhelm the reader, provide a list somewhere.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]