Q. I understand how in proofreading (as opposed to copyediting) you write only the proofreaders’ marks in the text, with corrections and operations in the margins (such as writing a caret in the text to indicate insertion, but putting the letter to be inserted in the margin, not above the caret), as in figure 2.7 of CMOS 17. But is there some protocol as to which notations go in which margin? Do they all go in the left margin, or do you split them up evenly between left and right?
A. As long as they are readable and in left-to-right order, it doesn’t matter how you divide corrections between the two margins.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do footnotes have to be double-spaced and the same size font as the text? It just does not look right!
A. In Chicago style, yes. Remember that traditionally manuscripts are prepared for someone to edit on paper, if necessary. Manuscripts are not meant to “look right” if that means looking like a published article or book. The type should be large enough for easy reading, and there should be enough space between the lines for copyediting. (If the manuscript will be edited electronically, the editor can easily change the format, of course, and none of this matters.) When material is typeset in a book or journal, the notes are usually reduced in size and printed single-space—and then they will look right to you.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a paper that compares entries in two eighteenth-century French dictionaries. The author has included headwords—both French and English—in all caps throughout the paper. This is fatiguing, especially in long lists of entries in running text. Does Chicago style recommend a format for referring to headwords in running text?
A. I’m afraid CMOS isn’t that specific. If the paper is going to be published, the copyeditor, writer, and designer will likely consult over the typographical treatment of elements like this. In preparation, you might ask the writer to submit examples of quoted headwords from other sources on the topic.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you tell me when The Chicago Manual of Style changed from recommending two spaces after a period (or any other end-sentence punctuation) to a single space? I’m looking for a year and/or edition and also a reason.
A. As far as I can tell, the 14th edition of CMOS (1993) was the first to use a single space after a period in its illustration of a typed manuscript (fig. 2.1), although the rule does not appear to be stated in that edition. The rule is clearly stated at 2.9 of the 15th edition (2003). The change reflected a shift in typesetting practices.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do you spell out the sound of a scream? I’ve seen everything from “aaagh!” to “argh!” to “aahhh!” Please tell me there’s a limit to the number of times one can repeat letters!
A. There is a limit to the number of times one can repeat letters! Unfortunately, the limit is different in almost every case.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In terms of full or ragged-edge justification of documents, which one is preferred for which type of document: business letter, research paper, sales and marketing materials?
A. Full justification is most often appropriate for typeset materials that have been professionally designed. All other materials should be ragged. In many cases you can judge for yourself: if full justification causes some lines to stretch out and others to squish together even when automatic hyphenation is turned on, it’s better to go ragged.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a jointly authored book in which each coauthor has written his own separate preface, can both prefaces be under one header, “Preface,” with each one signed? Or do I have to call one of them a preface and one something else, like a prologue? The trouble with the latter option is that they both are truly prefaces and serve exactly the same function.
A. It’s fine to call them both prefaces. Although prefaces are often signed at the end, in this case it might be better to put the byline at the top, right after “Preface.” In the table of contents, include both “Preface, by Author A” and “Preface, by Author B.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m creating a name index for a book on the history of Japanese imperial rule, which is heavy on references to Japanese deities. The deities are discussed numerous times in connection with the early Japanese emperors, for example as part of the first emperor’s lineage. I believe only people should be in the name index, but are there any exceptions, such as this one?
A. If you are the author of the book, you get to decide what to put in your index. If you’re writing the index for someone else, that person is the best one to decide. If deities are to be included, you might rename the index “Index of Persons and Deities.” Or you could have a separate glossary of deities. Don’t worry about conventions and exceptions. Think about what the readers of this book will need, and then create it for them.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My indexing partner included names in the acknowledgments section in his index nominum. The text goes, “I
am indebted to X and Z for materials or conversation that assisted my research for this article.” Including
X and Z in the index seems unnecessary to me. What do you think?
A. While it may not be necessary to include certain names in an index, it’s common to allow a certain
number of “vanity” entries, if there is room. This writer would like his colleagues
or mentors to see their names when they look for them, and evidently he wasn’t able to cite them in
a more substantive way in the book.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a text in English, but most of the literature I am using is in Spanish. When I quote from the original in Spanish, where shall I put the translation: text or footnote? If I am using the Spanish edition of a foreign book, must I translate the quotation? How do I put that the translation is mine?
A. The trick in translating is to imagine your targeted readers and write for them. If you doubt that most of your readers know Spanish, put the English somewhere handy, either in the text or in a footnote. If the translation is not that important (because it’s short, or the context makes it obvious, or the Spanish words are cognates that most readers can figure out), you might skip it. A long quotation set off as a block can be followed by a block of translation. Shorter translations can go in parentheses in the text. “(My translation)” can follow, or you can simply say in a preface or footnote that all translations are yours unless noted otherwise. Please look at CMOS chapter 11 for detailed recommendations for quoting from other languages.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]