Q. How do I cite a single-volume book that contains two books by two different authors but with one editor? (This is a contemporary publication of two eighteenth-century novellas.)
A. Even such a book must have a title, so you may cite it as you would any other book that has an editor and no author (CMOS 14.103). In the unusual case that there is no collective title—that your work consists of two works bound together—just do your best to describe the work:
Author A, Title A, and Author B, Title B (City: Publisher, date).
or
Author A, Title A (City: Publisher, date), and Author B, Title B (City: Publisher, date). Bound as a single volume.
In a bibliography, add a cross-reference under Author B: see Author A.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How does one cite a food label? My friend is writing her dissertation on the local-food movement and branding (among other things), and she’s curious about how to properly cite some labels she’s using in her research.
A. There is no particular “proper” way to cite a food label in the sense that a style manual will include an example you can follow. Even so, it’s understandable that your friend wants something more scholarly than “I saw this Twinkie label . . .” Following general guidelines for citing, your friend should list whatever will help a reader locate the label to check it personally, such as the brand, the type of food, the type of packaging, the date on the label, or the date observed. There is no point in trying to force the information into a standard note or bibliography citation format. Photos of the labels might be more helpful than pseudocitations.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing an article that includes the following citation:
Lactantii Firmiani, Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem, ed. J. Davisius (Cantabrigia, 1718).
The author of the book is actually Lactantius Firmianus, and his book is entitled Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem. But the edition cited is entitled Lactantii Firmiani Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem. So should I change it to Lactantii Firmiani Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem (all italics, no comma) and not put in the author’s undeclined name (although that might be confusing when text references have it undeclined)? Or should I change it to Lactantius Firmianus, Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem (leaving Lactantii Firmiani out of the title, since it’s not part of the original title)? Or should I write Lactantius Firmianus, Lactantii Firmiani Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem? Furthermore, should I cite the editor as J. Davisius (as printed in the book) or J. Davis (which was his real name)? Aaaarrrgh!!!!
A. It’s best to cite the information as it appears (presumably) on the book itself, as in your first version. If you feel the need to gloss any part of it (rarely necessary for classical authors and places), do so in square brackets:
[Lactantius Firmianus], Lactantii Firmiani, Epitome Divinarum Institutionum ad Pentadium Fratrem, ed. J. Davisius [J. Davis] (Cantabrigia [Cambridge], 1718).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When can we use apud in a note?
A. Apud (Latin for “at,” “beside,” “within”) precedes the name of an author or title to indicate a source. It is used like the French word chez to mean “in the works of” or “according to”: apud Homer. It’s appropriate for those occasions when you just want to impress classics teachers or elderly readers and it doesn’t really matter whether anyone else understands.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.]