Q. I searched high and low but could not find how to cite computer programs according to the CMOS. It’s a rather complicated thing, it seems to me, with programs published by many anonymous people
on the net, ever-changing versions (do these need a date?), and even very obscure and obsolete programs running on long-forgotten
operating systems. I’d love to know the rules!
A. A computer program is not well suited to citing; instead, you may simply identify it. Generally the name and version are
sufficient, but if you have other information that your readers will find useful (e.g., the maker or the year it was introduced),
include it as well.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’ve always thought that when you use any as a pronoun it should be treated as singular. But in the following sentences, “Do they all match?
Is any missing?” using is feels awkward. Does any in this case refer to they in the previous sentence?
A. Yes, it does. Any can be singular or plural (which I’m sure by now you have learned from checking the dictionary you
keep at hand): “Have you checked the pizza? Is any missing?” or “Have
you checked the Twinkies? Are any missing?” Both are correct (and around here, most likely missing).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am end-noting and fact-checking a book manuscript. I know that after providing a full citation for each quote, I can abbreviate
the citation in subsequent endnotes. My question is: does every quote from the same interview need an endnote? There are several
quotes in a row, some occupying only a couple of lines. It seems giving each an endnote is a bit redundant, not to mention
tedious. May I say something like this in the note: “12. This and subsequent citations: Mike Jones (president,
ABC company), in discussion with the author, January 1, 2012”?
A. Yes. In fact, if you mention the person’s title and the date in the text, you don’t
need an endnote with duplicate information. If you mention everything but the date in the text, your note can contain just
the missing information: “12. Interview, January 1, 2012.” The point in creating
notes isn’t to follow a rule of frequency or placement but to make sure readers know at all times what
the source is.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the author-date reference system, in a text citation, should a nonbreaking space be used between the author and the date
and before the page number or other locator if present? If ordinary spaces are used, the citation could break at either, causing
the next line to start with a number, which seems undesirable.
A. Don’t worry about the breaks you describe. You’re right that they aren’t
ideal, but the squishing or stretching of text that results from the use of nonbreaking spaces can be even more unsightly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My joining your site was prompted by entry 8.40, “Centuries and Decades,” of your 14th edition. Your sample decades were 1800–1809 and 1910–19, and those examples make no sense to me. Decades must have ten years; decades can’t skip years; decades can span neither millennia nor centuries as you have them doing in your examples; e.g., 1800 is the last year of the 18th century, not the first year of the 19th century, and the second decade of the 20th century is 1911–20, not 1910–19. I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot, but isn’t precision an essential ingredient in all writing before style considerations? Also, should writing style be based on popular culture rather than logic? I’m troubled by this entry in your manual and I’d appreciate your letting me know how you justify it.
A. Welcome to CMOS 17 (and the twenty-first century)! As any linguist will confirm, in both grammar and style matters, convention often outweighs logic, and there is little to be done about it. If you decide to start a campaign to impose logic on the designation of decades and millennia, we wish you well. In the meantime, you’ll be happy to know that, as of the 15th edition, CMOS acknowledges your system: “Note that some consider the first decade of, for example, the twenty-first century to consist of the years 2001–10; the second, 2011–20; and so on. Chicago defers to the preference of its authors in this matter.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are producing our first e-publication. If we were printing the book, the notes would have gone at the end of the publication,
but technology is dictating that we divide up the notes and place them at the end of each section. If a work is first cited
in the chapter 1 notes and then pops up again in chapter 4, can I use a shortened citation in the chapter 4 notes or must
I repeat the information in full?
A. The technology doesn’t change the answer: whether a book is printed or electronic, if there is a bibliography,
there’s no need for full citations. If there is no bibliography, it’s preferable
to cite in full the first time a source appears in each chapter, although it’s common to cite in full
only the first time a work appears in the book.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a production editor working on a novel and can’t figure out the best way
to present the epigraph source. The epigraph is “What I am is what I am,” and
the author wants the source to be “Lauryn Hill, ‘A Rose Is Still a Rose.’”
But in reality, the lyric is from the song “What I Am” by Edie Brickell & New
Bohemians; Lauryn Hill sang that line in Aretha Franklin’s song “A Rose Is Still
a Rose.” My first instinct is to just credit the epigraph as Edie Brickell & New Bohemians, but the
book is urban fiction, and so referencing Lauryn Hill is important for the author. And I don’t want
to make it too complicated, since this is a novel and the epigraph should evoke a feeling in the reader, not make them ponder
the finer points of music sampling. Any suggestions?
A. It would be sloppy and misleading to attribute the quote to Lauryn Hill. If Lauryn Hill sang the national anthem, would you
attribute “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave”
to her? If the author is determined to quote Lauryn Hill, she should use a line from a Lauryn Hill song. Otherwise, she must
credit whoever actually wrote that lyric, adding “as sung by Lauryn Hill” if she
likes.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you call out a figure from a subsequent section? For example, can you make a first reference to figures 3.9 through 3.12 in section 2.4? My stance is that you can’t make a first-reference callout from the future, only from the current or a previous section. Calling out subsequent sections and appendixes (but not tables and figures) seems somehow different and not subject to this rule, which I might well have unknowingly made up.
A. This is one of many situations where it’s not helpful to consider the general rule to be inflexible. If certain figures are mainly discussed in chapter 3 but the writer wants to point forward to them in chapter 2, it’s perverse to either not allow it or force the writer to move the figures to chapter 2, away from the main discussion. Writers organizing a book should number the figures in the order they are discussed in the text, but after that, they should be able to refer to them anywhere the figures enhance the discussion.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. For citations, a quoted sentence A is marked with a footnote of no. 8 with a particular author, book, and page number. Sentence B in another paragraph is also quoted from the same author, book, and page number. Can we label it with footnote no. 8 or do we have to cite it with another number?
A. There is a system by which superscript (or parenthetical) numbers refer to a numbered list of references, and under that system you could use the number 8 for all citations of a given author and book (please see CMOS 14.3). This is not Chicago style, however. In Chicago style every note number is unique, so you would go to note 9 in the case of a subsequent reference to the same book (if there are no other notes in between).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. From a Spanish-speaking company I have many financial documents containing large numbers (billions, trillions). As I understand it, the best practice is either to leave the complete number as is or to round it (1,256,128,023 or 1.3 billion). Is there a rule regarding how many places after the decimal point should be shown? My client wants as much information as possible to be communicated, but it seems to me that, in English, we rarely see anything beyond one place behind the decimal point.
A. It’s a matter of judgment, although as you say, one decimal place is conventional. If your client wants as much information as possible, it would be best not to round the numbers. If you can, ask the client to state a preference. Take care, too, when translating terms like billion that may look the same in both languages but actually express different numbers (see CMOS 5.250, s.v. billion; trillion).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]