Q. Does CMOS have a recommendation on how to present conversations taking place via text messages in fiction writing?
Q. I frequently quote material that includes existing footnotes within it. If I don’t want to include the footnote in my own writing, can I insert [footnote omitted] in superscript in place of the footnote number to the original text?
A. The note number can simply be deleted. It adds no meaningful content and risks leading the reader on a wild goose chase for a note in your own text that doesn’t exist. Nor is it helpful to readers to know that you’ve deleted the number; such numbers are a distraction even in the original text, and many books are published without note reference numbers for that very reason (notes are instead listed at the end of the book by page number and key phrase in the text). If, on the other hand, you also want to include the text of the note, use a block quotation, preserve the note number, and present the numbered note below the quotation, preferably in a smaller font size. See CMOS 13.7 for more, including how to handle parenthetical text references.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are “ius gentium” and “jus gentium” equally correct, assuming I’m consistent throughout my essay? I’m used to using “jus,” but many of the sources I’m consulting use “ius”; if I quote a passage with this word, may I simply anglicize it to “jus” without comment?
A. The spellings “ius gentium” and “jus gentium” are equally correct, though we, too, would prefer the anglicized form (to follow Merriam-Webster, not to mention the OED and other standard English-language dictionaries). But do not change “ius” to “jus” in direct quotations; readers wishing to follow your work might be confused by such a change (or, worse, prevented from finding the term). At most, provide a parenthetical gloss at first mention:
jus gentium (or ius gentium)
If the first mention is within a quotation, use square brackets:
ius gentium [jus gentium]
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In dialogue, do you spell out social titles? For example, “Mister Lewis, please come to the table.” If so, what should we do with “Ms.”? This is a different word from “Miss,” so that isn’t a totally accurate spelling. Obviously “Ms.” (pronounced “miz”) implies that marital status is unknown, while “Miss” suggests being single. Should the dialogue just be “Ms. Smith” throughout, or “Miss Smith” even though the author means “Ms.”?
A. The fact that dialogue is spoken doesn’t mean everything has to be spelled out for the reader. Use this two-part test: Is the word normally abbreviated? And if the dialogue occurred in a dramatic work, would an actor know how to speak the line? Social titles are pretty much always abbreviated before a name, and “Ms.” is pronounced “miz”—as any reader should know. So write “Ms. Smith.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When a word beginning with an uppercase letter, either because it begins the sentence or because it’s a proper noun, is stammered/stuttered, should the second and following instances of the letter also be uppercase? I’m looking at “P-peter,” which looks really strange to me, and I would write it “P-Peter,” but I can’t find any examples in CMOS.
A. “P-Peter” is the logical choice. By capitalizing the second “P,” you are unambiguously signaling repetition of the first letter as such. Additional letters would also be capitalized: “P-P-Peter.” If the word would normally be lowercased, a capital letter still makes sense at the beginning of a sentence—“P-Please, p-please . . .”—though some authors will prefer lowercase. Choose one approach and apply it consistently.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When presenting a Q&A with a note like “This interview has been edited for length and clarity,” how much can you edit the interview? Should you still use ellipses and brackets, or does that note mean these devices aren’t needed?
A. Such a note gets you off the ellipses-and-brackets hook. As for how much to edit, don’t do anything that might distort the interviewee’s intended meaning. If possible, share a final draft of the interview with the interviewee prior to publication. Interviews written and edited in collaboration with the interviewee usually won’t require any kind of editorial note. A previously published interview, on the other hand, is treated like any previously published source: omissions or clarifications would need to be signaled in the text with ellipses or brackets or explained in a note. For more advice, see CMOS 13.48.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I cannot find any advice in section 6.99 about how to handle completion of abridged matter when providing the missing letters in brackets. For instance, if the original has “P. Jarnach,” should one write “P.[hilipp] Jarnach” or “P[hilipp] Jarnach”? In other words, should one keep or drop the period? My practice has always been to omit it because it is obvious that there was one and because keeping it would look crowded.
A. In clarifying quoted text, brackets can be used not only to comment on the original text but also to replace it. In this case, the period in the original literally stands for the rest of the abbreviated name and can be replaced (so “P.” becomes “P[hilipp]”). Another option would be to supply the name after the initial, leaving the initial and period intact: “P. [Philipp] Jarnach.” But your practice of replacing the period is more elegant and gets Chicago’s seal of approval. You’ll find an example of this usage at CMOS 14.74.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is Chicago style counsel for using empty brackets when attempting to fit a quotation syntactically into a sentence? The Bluebook permits empty brackets to indicate “the omission of letters from a common root word”—for example, “judgment[]” (77). Does Chicago follow this? And if not, how does Chicago handle such cases where, for instance, an original approached needs to be made approach?
A. In Chicago style, brackets can signal substitutions as well as insertions. To change approached to approach within a quotation, the word approach goes into the brackets. If it’s important for readers to know whether the bracketed material is an edit or an insertion, consider paraphrasing or explaining instead of altering the quote. Please see CMOS 6.99.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am unclear on when to put a term following “known as” in quotation marks. I searched CMOS online and saw what seemed like conflicting styles in the search results, but perhaps there is an obvious guideline I am not picking up on. For example, paragraph 3.59 says, “The left-hand column of a table, known as the stub,” and 3.4 has “Artwork consisting of solid black on a white background . . . is traditionally known as line art” (no quotation marks around “the stub” or “line art”). But 2.110 says, “The proofreader must mark only the proofs, never the manuscript, which is now known as ‘dead’ or ‘foul’ copy,” and 8.61 has “For example, the cheese known as ‘gruyère’ takes its name from a district in Switzerland” (with quotation marks around the terms). My sentence is “One technique, known as resist ware, gives vessels a vibrant texture.” Quotation marks around “resist ware” or no?
A. Use your judgment. The more unlikely a word is to be known to your reader, the more appropriate the quotation marks. Likewise for terms that may be misunderstood if not set off from the rest of the sentence. There’s no rule that will fit every circumstance.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, I am currently working on the review of a novel. The study I’m working on is a literary one. I employed the author-date system under Chicago style for the referencing. My question is, for quoted text, do I have to begin each quotation from the novel and from other sources in a separate paragraph, as in
Molars help us in digesting food.
Symbolically, “they allow us to process the information that we consider or take in and turn it into our own actions.”
Or could I continue on the same line, like this:
Molars help us in digesting food. Symbolically, “they allow us to process the information that we consider or take in and turn it into our own actions.”
A. There’s no need to start a new paragraph for each sentence that introduces a quotation. You may be thinking of a rule that applies to dialogue, where it’s traditional to start a new paragraph when there’s a change in speaker.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]