Q. I noticed that you always specify that the correct font for a typical subject is Roman. I never use Roman for anything. Normally I prefer Calibri. Would it be appropriate to follow the format of the subject in the Calibri font?
A. I wonder if you’ve misunderstood our use of roman. “Roman” isn’t a font. It’s just a way to refer to the lack of italics. Even if you use the Calibri font, you have to choose roman or italic Calibri. Maybe you’re thinking of Times New Roman, which is the name of a font, like Calibri. Times New Roman also comes in roman and italic (and bold, and small caps, etc.). We do recommend using a serifed font like Times New Roman or Palatino for manuscript preparation (on paper, that is—not for online display).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In CMOS (16th ed.), fig. 1.1, the ISBN is followed by a format designator in parentheses—the example given is “(cloth).” What are Chicago’s other standard format labels for other types of binding?
A. We use cloth, paper, and e-book. [Update: For a newer example, see fig. 1.1 in the 17th edition.]
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We published a book in 2014 and did not think it would need a second printing. The book has since sold out, and now we plan to issue a second printing in 2017. Is it overkill to include an impression line on the copyright page? We do not plan a third printing, but, of course, we were wrong the first time. We would have something like
17 2
in the second. Is it ever appropriate to indicate the second printing in a narrative form?
A. There are probably many editors who have found themselves in this position. It’s never inappropriate to add helpful information. “Second printing” or “2nd printing” would be crystal clear, but if you prefer to have an impression line, “17 2” would baffle most readers. To make a traditional second-impression line for a book published in 2017, write something like
21 20 19 18 17 2 3 4
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Who is responsible for putting in text corrections to a manuscript, the editor or the people in graphics? This is a real bone of contention in our office.
A. Typically, editors make corrections up to a certain point in the production process, after which they no longer have access to the files. At that point a graphic designer or typesetter must make the corrections, either as requested by an editor or with the editor’s knowledge and approval. Every publishing house should have a strict protocol for such matters.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How many times does it take for a foreign word to become familiar in a document? And does distance between occurrences matter? In reference to CMOS 7.53: “If a word from another language becomes familiar through repeated use throughout a work, it need be italicized only on its first occurrence. If it appears only rarely, however, italics may be retained.” This novel I’m working on has tons of foreign words in the dialogue that vary all over the place in frequency.
A. It’s not wise to quantify these things. You must use your judgment. Each word is a separate case. After all, non-English words that have an English cognate (activisme; simpatico; Milch; abreviación) are easily learned, but others might be very difficult. If you’re spending a great deal of time making decisions, consider making all non-English words italic all the time, knowing that some readers may find this tiresome and others helpful. The writer and editor must decide the best course.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it normal to not indent the first paragraph after subheadings?
A. Yes—it’s common practice to begin the paragraph after a subheading flush left.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am looking to know the proper style for when I start my paper with a block quote. This quote is not integrated into the text. It is simply there in lieu of an introductory paragraph at the very, very beginning of my paper. I have thoroughly gone through the manual and cannot find an example or advice for what to do in this instance.
A. This sounds like an epigraph, which may be set off like a block quote, without quotation marks, and with the author’s name immediately following. You can find advice on formatting epigraphs at CMOS 1.37, 1.49, and 13.36.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a table, where would you put the row for Miscellaneous or Other if it has numbers large enough that if the rows were ordered by size, it would appear as row 2 or 3?
|
Event type
|
No.
|
%
|
|
Medication
|
1,045
|
55
|
|
Other
|
503
|
27
|
|
Surgery
|
241
|
13
|
|
Dietary
|
99
|
5
|
A. Since other implies “not important enough to identify more explicitly,” that line should go at the bottom of the table. And when a miscellaneous category accounts for so large a part of the data, it should be explained in a note.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I edit short summaries for nonfiction books. As you know, for informal writing, the bending of grammatical and stylistic rules is tolerated. I’m establishing a style guide to produce all my summaries in consistent style. I would love to know how CMOS might help me, or if you have any other resource that book editors may resort to.
A. If you are a subscriber to CMOS Online, you can use our Style Sheet feature to keep track of rules you decide to bend. You can make as many style sheets as you like. Style sheets can be copied, downloaded, and emailed to other people. Within a style sheet, you can use a button to insert a hot-linked reference to any numbered section of the Manual.
The Notes feature would also come in handy, since it allows you to annotate any section of CMOS to include your own styles and rules.
As for guidance on editing informal writing, the decisions you make will be specific to each author’s intention and tone and audience. It’s more a matter of editorial judgment than something you can follow rules for. But the guidelines in CMOS covering punctuation, hyphenation, capitalization, and myriad other topics should still be very useful.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The 16th edition 13.7, point 4, states that it’s permissible to omit note reference marks from a quotation “unless omission would affect the meaning of the quotation.” Does the same principle apply to author-date citations within quotations? I.e., can author-date citations within a quotation be omitted without introducing an ellipse?
A. Author-date citations should be retained, or (as you suggest) their omission should be indicated with an ellipsis. If this would result in a manuscript full of ellipses, and if the citations are not needed, an alternative is to omit the references and explain your method in a general note. (See CMOS 13.7, item 5—which is new to the 17th edition.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]