Q. I teach my students to keep the capitalization used in the original text when quoting in a paper or to indicate with brackets
when the original text has been changed. I also tell them to alter the original casing to mesh into their sentences. However,
examples in some English grammar books maintain the capitalization on poetry, even when meshing into a writer’s
sentence, e.g., “Frost writes of the separation of ‘Two roads.’ ”
Is this correct, or should it be “the separation of ‘[t]wo roads’ ”?
A. Both methods are common. If readers see that capitalization does not mesh with the syntax of a sentence, or that brackets
are used, they have a clue as to the original casing. If the casing happens to mesh, the reader has no way to know whether
it’s been edited. If you’re preparing a paper where the issue is important (literary,
linguistic, or legal), you should explain your system in a note or preface. In most documents, however, overattention to such
matters merely bogs down the reader, and it’s normal practice to quietly change the casing to fit one’s
own syntax.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m working on a manuscript where the author starts many block quotes with lowercase words. Is this
okay?
A. Yes. It’s a service to readers to use whichever case fits with the text that introduces the quotation.
In legal or technical writing, linguistics, or literary criticism, though, the original casing might have significance, in
which case you must retain it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Microsoft Word just suggested I change “What do you mean ‘unfortunately?’ ” to “What do you mean ‘unfortunately’?” Should I tell Word to leave me alone, or am I mistaken in believing that, in American English, quotation marks envelop all neighboring punctuation?
A. Ah, you are mistaken. You must not include question marks and exclamation marks within the quotation marks unless they are part of the quotation. (Please see CMOS 6.70.) But since MS Word can’t possibly divine the original quotation, yes, you may tell it to leave you alone.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m in the process of editing a nonfiction book about a murder trial that took place in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, in 1983. I need to know whether courtroom testimony that the author quotes from the public record—and
has set inside quotation marks—must be reproduced precisely as it was transcribed in the courtroom (except
for elisions and paraphrases of testimony not set in quotes).
A. Yes, if it’s quoted from the public record, it should be reproduced precisely. If the author has reason
to think that the transcription is misleading or faulty, she can say so, either by interpolation or by comments outside the
quotation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am in the awkward situation of trying to cite an excerpted book review that appears on the dust jacket of an updated edition
of said monograph. While it seems technically correct to cite the name of the reviewer, the book being reviewed and its author,
the title of the original source of the review, “quoted in” Book Being Reviewed,
2d ed. (publication information), jacket; this also strikes me as convoluted and vaguely ridiculous. Finding the source of
the original review would provide a way out, I know, but I’d rather not sift through several months
worth of copies of the Daily Telegraph (c. 1965).
A. I know it’s a drag, but for credibility’s sake you must either cite accurately
your source within a source or dig up the original and cite that. The idea is to give the reader enough information to track
down the source.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a manuscript that uses quotations from British texts. Can I silently change British spellings (such as “colour”) into American spellings in quotations?
A. Although it’s common to do this in the main text of a manuscript that has crossed the pond, I wouldn’t do it within quotations, partly out of respect for the original and partly because if I failed to catch every last Britishism, I would render the quotation inconsistent and violate my primary rule of copyediting: First, do no harm. If you decide to change the spellings, you could note somewhere that quotations have been edited for spelling and punctuation. For a list of permissible changes to quotations, please see CMOS 13.7.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a manuscript in which the author wants to add emphasis to a lengthy quotation. The original
already has several phrases in italics. Is there a proper and/or elegant way to add emphasis to an already emphasized passage
without confusing the reader?
A. It’s awkward to add emphasis in this way, and I would discourage it. The only solution is to note “emphasis
added” each time the author meddles. It might be better to rewrite, quoting the material in smaller
pieces. That way you can provide emphasis in the way you introduce each bit, rather than litter a lengthy quotation with italics.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a manuscript in which the author loves to use quotation marks around special expressions that are not to be
taken literally. Eliminating them is not an option. The problem I am having is that at the end of a quotation that ends a
sentence he often uses ellipsis. Here is an actual example: It might be illuminating to pursue the relationship between Goffmanian
and Christian usages of stigma and stigmatization in the context of guilty knowledge, confession, healing, guilt, forgiveness,
and “the marked man/woman.” . . .
(The ellipsis is his.) What do you think?
A. Ellipses indicating thought that trails off can create the effect of a person dithering along in idle speculation rather
than a writer crafting thoughtful arguments. A surfeit of dots results in a weak and hesitant argument. Material like this
is not likely to benefit from a wifty tone; I would edit out the ellipses.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When quoting from a book and using the four-dot method of ellipsis, can one arrange the order of sentences differently from
how they appear in the book? Could one, for example—in an attempt to give a concise, overall impression
of the author’s thinking—begin with a quote from chapter 10, then from chapter
4, and finally from chapter 1? A colleague and I have both looked in the manual and couldn’t find anything.
A. I suspect the reason this isn’t covered in CMOS is that it’s pretty much unthinkable. Keep the quotations separate, without ellipses.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am copyediting a historic work which includes quite a number of implied quotes, such as the following, where no quotation
marks have been used: As Robert Choquette says, the wide range of theological tenets within Protestantism makes too much generalization
about the feelings and reactions of clergy dangerous. I realize there are situations where quotation marks are not required,
such as: Jane asked him to come to dinner but he said he had another commitment, but “As Robert Choquette
says” certainly reads as though a direct quote should follow. Am I being too paranoid or pedantic?
I would much appreciate your advice on this.
A. There is no need to quote a paraphrase; in fact, it would be wrong, since then you would be indicating that the person actually
said or wrote those exact words, when he didn’t. If you suspect that your author has plagiarized, however,
or simply made a mistake in copying verbatim from a source without noting it with quotation marks, then that’s
a separate issue, which should be queried.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]