Q. Should we left-align text or use justified alignment?
A. If you are preparing a manuscript for typesetting, use left alignment. Full justification is ugly and more difficult to read,
because stretching the lines to full measure results in uneven spacing between words. Although end-of-line hyphenation could
help prevent uneven spacing, you mustn’t use it in manuscript preparation because it leaves unclear
which words should retain hyphens when text reflows during typesetting. In typeset documents, justified alignment looks best,
but only if the type is small enough and the text column wide enough to accommodate it. If you’re typesetting
in narrow columns, full justification can result in both stretched-out lines with big spaces between words and crammed lines
with tiny word spaces. If typesetting with justification, therefore, be sure to allow the typesetters to hyphenate words at
the ends of lines.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When a subsequent edition of a book is being published, is it proper to make any changes to the title of the book, or should the title appear exactly the same in all editions?
A. There’s no law against changing the title of a book, but it can be awkward—think of the confusion. Everywhere the new title appears, it will have to be clarified: Persuading with Power (3rd edition of A Woman's Guide to People-Pleasing). Generally it’s not a good idea unless for some reason the old title has become hopelessly out of date or offensive or problematic in some other way to the extent that confusion is preferable to retaining the old title.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The author wishes to have first mention of foreign words italicized and explained. The book consists of a series of weekly
readings, and therefore the reader may well not start at the beginning. In these circumstances, should the first mention of
a foreign word in each article be italicized and explained, even though there will be many duplications throughout the book?
A. You could do it that way, but readers might lose interest after a certain amount of repetition. It would be better to have
a glossary in the back of the book.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have to write about someone with two PhD’s and a wealth of other academic degrees. The editors I
freelance for require a degree behind the name, but are of two minds: one says that only the terminal degree should be named;
the other says that all the degrees should be used, but asks, in what order? Mostly we will call her Dr. Doe, but which is
right? Jane Doe, PhD, MBA, BA, or Jane Doe, PhD?
A. This is a question for the etiquette mavens, but listing lower degrees without identifying their areas of study serves no
obvious purpose and may strike readers as silly—or pompous. It’s different when
a person holds complementary or unrelated degrees, and the fields are stated: for example, a BA in mathematics and a PhD in
philosophy. In Ms. Doe’s case, it’s reasonable to list the PhD and MBA, since
the degree of MBA indicates business as the field of study, and we wouldn’t assume that a PhD has an
MBA in the way that we assume she has a BA and perhaps an MA.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a military history. The author insists on all numerals for the army units, rather than using numerals for 101 and above. With the exception of roman numerals for corps, is it all right to use the author’s preference?
A. The author is right to use numerals consistently for all mentions of army units. (See CMOS 9.7.) But in any case, when a writer expresses a strong preference for a style that’s reasonable and harmless, there isn’t much point in fighting over it, especially if he has already prepared the manuscript consistently with that style.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Though the standard Chicago-style proofreading practice is to use the margins to identify all corrections, is there ever
an alternate method of proofreading where the symbols and changes are marked only within the text due to margin space issues?
A. In typeset copy (“proof”), there is very little space between the lines, so no,
it’s not practical to write corrections there. Not to sound snooty, but good typesetting doesn’t
fill up the margins, so it’s rarely a problem that proofreaders have nowhere to write. And it’s
important to write or flag every change in the margin, because when typesetters are making corrections, they don’t
look for little marks hidden in the lines; they check the margins. (If typesetting is handled offshore, the proofs may be
scanned electronically for transmission, in which case your scrunched-in marks might or might not make it through the ether.)
If your proofs have very small margins, direct the proofreader to use a colorful pen and flag every interlinear change with
at least an X in the margin.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This is a two-part question if you don’t mind. I’m editing academic writing and
would like to (a) insert nouns when an adjective is being used alone, for example “Medievals think . . .”
(I would prefer “Medieval philosophers think . . .”),
and (b) insert “and” when an author left it out of a series, for example, “of
discerning true from false, good from evil, just from unjust.” (I want to insert “and”
before “just.”) Am I being too picky?
A. Yes, maybe a bit too picky. Neither construction is incorrect, and in (a) you risk changing the writer’s
meaning by filling in the word you think she meant. If you think a phrase is unclear, press the writer for clarification.
If the context makes the meaning obvious, however, I would respect the writer’s preference for brevity
and variety. As for (b), such constructions can have a pleasing rhythm that would be wrecked by adding “and,”
so use your ear before you meddle.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This headline appeared in the New York Times on Friday, May 11: “A Tough Fight Still Looms, Cheney Warns G.I.’s in Iraq.”
I thought no apostrophe was necessary here, as the s represents a plural, not a possessive. What’s up at the Times?
A. What’s up is that the Times uses New York Times style, not Chicago style. (Tsk!)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am putting together a pamphlet that compiles articles from another publication. To make the signatures come out right,
I’ve put the two-page contents on a spread (pp. iv and v) and put the first article (a two-pager) on
pages 1 and 2. Is there a convention that I should have a blank page between the front matter and the start of the text?
A. It adds some elegance, but it isn’t necessary, especially in a pamphlet. There is, however, a firm
convention that an odd-numbered page goes on the right, and a less strong convention that a table of contents begins on the
right. In your case, p. iv could be a blank left-hand page, the TOC could appear on pp. v and vi, and the first article could
start on p. 1, across from p. vi.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is footnote numbering allowed in an index along with a page number?
A. Yes. You can refer to a footnote like this: 24n1 (that means “page 24, footnote 1”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]