Q. I have run across this type of construction frequently in a fiction manuscript I’m editing. It feels somehow wrong, but I can’t find any reason why it should be. “Next to the door stood a single guard, an ugly aardvark that was staring at the ground and didn’t see them approach.” A colon instead of the comma would feel better, but is that an unnecessary change? (And colons look rather formal in fictional narratives.)
A. The sentence is fine. (Grammatically, at least.) The comma shows apposition.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m new at this and want to learn all I can. Should there be a comma after Perhaps in the following sentence? “Perhaps I would never have had the opportunity for an education.”
A. A comma has the power to make readers pause, so first try reading the sentence out loud to see whether a pause would be problematic. CMOS 6.31 says that short adverbial introductory phrases are normally fine without a comma, and that seems to be the case in your sentence. Anytime you decide you do want a pause, consider whether you actually need something stronger than a comma, such as a period or dash.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m confused why there is a comma before “as well as” in CMOS 6.19: “The team fielded one Mazda, two Corvettes, and three Bugattis, as well as a battered Plymouth Belvedere.” If “as well as” was replaced with “and,” there would not be a comma. I can’t find anything else about this in the Manual. Can you please explain?
A. The comma tells us to read the Belvedere as an afterthought—it hints that the battered car is in a different league from the other cars. A search of the Manual for the phrase “as well as” reveals that it is sometimes introduced by a comma and sometimes not, depending on context and meaning.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We have a debate going on about the following sentence. Should there be a comma after the word states or not? Following your rule in chapter 6 about commas before independent clauses joined by conjunctions, I believe it would. Thoughts? “The company operates in DC and all states except AK, ME, NH, NY, and RI.”
A. “Except AK, ME, etc.” is not actually an independent clause; it is a prepositional phrase. So there should be no comma after states.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I believe this may have been addressed back in the 14th edition, but I cannot find a current rule to support my writing “Yes sir!” as an exclamation (or “Yes ma’am!”) in the manner of “Aye sir!” Would you please let me know what CMOS’s view is on this? I have been leaving out the comma and am now being challenged by publishers I’m editing for.
A. You are fine either way. In direct address, a comma before the addressee is traditional and acceptable: “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” However, as noted in CMOS 5.47 of the 14th edition, expressions like “yes sir!” may be considered almost as a single word and omit the comma, especially when a true direct address follows (“Yes sir, Uncle Howard!”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. For a poster, is the following correct, “Friday June 17th 8:00 pm,” or does there need to be a comma between Friday and June?
A. If the words are all set on the same line in the same type size and color, then yes, you need a comma after Friday. Chicago style does not put th after the day: “June 17” says it perfectly. You also need a comma after the date, and Chicago style uses periods in p.m.:
Friday, June 17, 8:00 p.m.
The same information could appear on a poster without any punctuation, however, if the position, type size, color, or other design elements clearly separate day, date, and time.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are having a continuing discussion about the use of a comma before since in this type of sentence: The number was purposely selected, since most people can divide mentally. My understanding is that if the subordinate clause follows the main clause, no comma precedes the conjunction; however, I saw the following sentence in the Q&A and am now confused. “Be aware, however, that the figures may depart from Chicago style in some details, since they are taken from actual manuscripts and published books or journals.”
A. The rule you remember is only half the rule. Please see CMOS 6.25: “A dependent clause that follows a main, independent clause should not be preceded by a comma if it is restrictive—that is, essential to fully understanding the meaning of the main clause. . . . If the dependent clause is merely supplementary or parenthetical (i.e., nonrestrictive, or not essential to the meaning of the main clause), it should be preceded by a comma” (emphasis added). See paragraph 6.25 for examples.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the technical writing I do it is common to reduce the full name of a company, after first mention, to a shorter version, usually dropping the Inc. or LLC or what have you. For example: “Johnson Associates, Inc. (Johnson), is the proponent of this project.” Is it correct to have a comma after the parenthesis?
A. Yes, as long as there is also a comma before Inc. Chicago also allows for dropping both commas (CMOS 6.44): Johnson Associates Inc. (Johnson) is the proponent of this project.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is there a rule governing the use of commas in a compound imperative sentence where the subject is implied? For example: “[You] Take the documents to the incinerator and follow safety guidelines during disposal” or “[You] Take the documents to the incinerator, and (you) follow safety guidelines during disposal.” Technically, these are both independent clauses. Is there any official rule that states whether the implied you exists only at the beginning of the first clause? Is this one of those situations that is never covered because it doesn’t matter?
A. No official rule can tell us what a writer was thinking, but when we read “Do X and do Y,” a comma before and implies two independent clauses: “[You] do X, and [you] do Y.” The lack of a comma implies a compound verb: “[You] do X and do Y.” CMOS covers this type of comma at paragraphs 6.22–23, but as you guessed, much of the time it doesn’t matter.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Chicago, APA, and other style guides for US English require a comma before the conjunction in a series of three or more items, per Strunk and White. However, in recent years I have increasingly seen US publications not follow this rule. (I find myself more and more often rechecking to see if these periodicals and books are British!) Has your staff also noticed this tendency? If so, do you have a professional opinion on the subject?
A. First, let’s note that Strunk & White recommend the serial comma (1918) per Chicago (1906), not the other way around; we were using it when White was still learning to read! And since it is commonly called the Oxford comma, it seems the British have been onto it for a while as well.
Second, the serial comma is optional; some mainstream style guides (such as the Associated Press) don’t use it. If you google “serial comma” or “Oxford comma,” you’ll see a lot of heavy weather from opinionated commenters, but there are times when using the comma (or omitting it) results in ambiguity, which is why it’s best to stay flexible.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]