Q. If a word is used as a word but presented in all caps (or small caps), should it still be italicized or set in quotation marks (per CMOS 7.66)? For example: Fill in the squares with the letters that spell out BINGO. Or: Fill in the squares with the letters B, I, N, G, and O. In the latter case, the letters would be italicized. But putting the letters and the word in all caps and also italicizing them feels like overkill to me. It looks hideous. HELP!
A. Don’t worry, your editorial instincts align with ours. Capital letters, like italics and quotation marks, are very good at distinguishing a letter, word, or phrase from its surroundings. So unless you’re quoting from a specific source, please feel free to refer to the letters in bingo exactly as you’ve done in your question (both individually and when combined to form a word). Such an exception would be similar to the ones for the letter grades A–F (see CMOS 7.68) and the expression “the three R’s” (note the apostrophe; see 7.15 in the 18th ed. of CMOS).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am the managing editor of a business journal. Many of the authors I edit put the word “learn” in quotation marks when it applies to AI. For example, “The algorithm can be trained to ‘learn’ how people interact.” Does CMOS approve of this usage, or does it prefer to allow AI to learn like the rest of us, free from quotation marks?
A. CMOS would approve (or rather its editors would), but only if the author needs to make a point about the nature of learning and isn’t simply trying to be clever, and provided the device isn’t overused (once is usually enough). A bit of editorial pushback along those lines might get your authors to drop the quotation marks. If that doesn’t work, you might remind them that it’s called artificial intelligence for a reason. Using so-called scare quotes around learn (or respond or any other word normally associated with living beings) would tend to belabor the obvious. (For more on scare quotes, see CMOS 7.57.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If direct internal dialogue is set in italics, should the comma before the dialogue tag be set in italics or roman? CMOS 6.2 is very fuzzy on this. For example: “I lied, he thought, but maybe she will forgive me.” Imagine that the dialogue itself is set in italics. Should the first comma be italicized?
A. Good question! The comma after “lied” would be required both with the speaker tag (“I lied, he thought”) and without (“I lied, but maybe . . .”), so it could be said to belong to both the dialogue and the narrative. But adding quotation marks (as if the dialogue were speech) will suggest an answer:
“I lied,” he thought, “but maybe she will forgive me.”
becomes
I lied, he thought, but maybe she will forgive me.
The comma and period that are inside the closing quotation marks in the first version are in italics in the second version, whereas the comma after thought stays in roman. The difference is minuscule (without the bold for italics, would anyone notice?), and our solution is arbitrary. But it’s easy enough to understand and apply, so maybe we’ll make it a rule someday.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are reverse italics [i.e., roman text in an otherwise italic context] used when a legal case includes names of newspapers that would normally be italicized on their own? Thank you!
A. The name of a newspaper or other periodical would be italicized in the name of a court case—just like the name of any other entity. The Bluebook, a widely used citation guide that we recommend for citing court cases and the like (see CMOS 14.269), includes a relevant example: Seattle Times v. Univ. of Wash. (see section B10.1.1 in the 21st ed. of The Bluebook [2020]).
That Bluebook example is intended to illustrate two principles: (1) an initial The in the name of a party to a cited case can be omitted (a rule that applies to both names in the Seattle Times case), and (2) abbreviations can be used for certain terms, including state names and words like “University.”
And though that example isn’t supposed to show the use of italics for case names (which in Bluebook usage depends on context), it does suggest that a newspaper name within the name of a court case doesn’t merit any special typographic treatment. That’s probably because the name “Seattle Times” is, in this context, that of a publishing company rather than a publication (publications don’t argue cases, but their publishers do).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, I’m wondering how to style the name of a television program that has been assimilated into the cultural lexicon so that references to it are not truly references to the show. In particular, an author said, “When I landed at the airport, it was as if I had entered the Twilight Zone.” (He makes many references to this.) I feel it should be capitalized but not italicized, but I can’t find anything to say one way or another. Can you help? Thanks!
A. In your example, you’re right—the reference isn’t to the television show; rather, it’s to the fictional realm made famous by the show. So we agree with your treatment. Had your example been worded instead as follows, italics (and a capital T for The) would have been correct: “When I landed at the airport, it was as if I had arrived on the set of The Twilight Zone.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Would you italicize “x” in a phrase like “x number of dollars”? It seems like a variable, but I wasn’t sure if this casual use merited italics.
A. When an ordinary expression is borrowed from a specialized discipline like math, any basic convention that would be recognized by nonspecialists can often be retained, even in casual usage. For example, Chicago style is to italicize the n in “nth degree” (see CMOS 9.6); by extension, we would write “x number of dollars” (with the letter x in italics). As you suggest, these letters act like variables, which in math are usually italicized.
Another approach that’s common in published works is to use a capital X (normally without italics): “X number of dollars.” A capital X can stand in for anything that’s unknown or mysterious in some way—as in “X factor” or “X marks the spot”—and it’s arguably easier to read than a lowercase x. But either choice should work well as long as you’re consistent.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should sounds made by animals or objects be italicized when they aren’t part of dialogue (e.g., “quack,” “choo choo,” etc.)?
A. Though not required, such italics might have their place. Italics are common in fiction for unspoken discourse (as for a narrator’s thoughts). Such italics signal to readers that the words come from somewhere other than the narrative or dialogue. Consider also the convention used by many video captioners of italicizing words spoken off-screen. Meow. (Sorry, our editorial assistant must be hungry again.) If you do end up deciding that italics would work for you, try not to overuse them.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Robots are being named and even developing personalities, not just in fiction, but in the real world. Should their names be italicized—i.e., “I told Benjamin to wait at the coffee shop,” where Benjamin is a robot with artificial intelligence?
A. Italics for robot names could be fun in fiction; however, that doesn’t seem to be the convention either in fiction or in real life. (An exception is generally made for named spacecraft and the like, including the robotic Mars rover Perseverance; see CMOS 8.116.) Before you decide what to do, consider asking some robots to weigh in.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should the apostrophe in an italicized word in possessive plural form be italicized? Example: If I italicize the possessive form of the word pirates, would the apostrophe also be italicized?
A. That depends. If you’re referring to the plural possessive form of the word pirates as a word, then italicize the whole thing, including the apostrophe: pirates’. But if you’re using italics for emphasis, leave the apostrophe in regular text. For example, “It was the pirates’ ship, not mine, that sank.”
The difference, however, between ’ and ’ will go unnoticed by most readers—even those of us who scrutinize such things for a living—so let’s switch to the singular to confirm our choices. To refer to the possessive pirate’s as a word, you’d put the whole thing in italics (as it is styled in this sentence). But for emphasis—that is, to single out the pirate’s ship as opposed to some other ship—italics are best reserved for pirate alone (as styled in this sentence, between the dashes). Even in the singular, this is an extremely fine distinction that will go unnoticed by many. But it recognizes that the possessive ending can be considered independently of the word to which it attaches, as “belonging to” would be in “the ship belonging to the pirate.” That final period, in case you’re wondering, isn’t in italics.
For italics for emphasis, see CMOS 7.50; for words used as words, see CMOS 7.63.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]