Q. How do you handle text-message content? Is it put in quotation marks or do you use italics?
A. A message is a message, whether it comes from a book, an interview, lipstick on a mirror, or your phone. Use quotation marks
to quote.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Lots of questions here seem to boil down to a choice between rigorous consistency and a pleasing typographic appearance.
Here’s another one. I was wondering about double quotation marks when shortening an article title in
a footnote. If the full title of the article is “‘Un bell’oratorio
all’uso di Roma’: Patronage and Secular Context of the Oratorio in Baroque Rome,”
should I leave the double quotation marks when giving the short title, i.e., “‘Un
bell’oratorio all’uso di Roma’”? It
looks a bit silly, this doubly enshrined title. I would appreciate your take on this!
A. Yes, in the case of a title, use both double and single marks to make it clear that it’s a quotation.
This is in contrast to using only one set when excerpting quoted speech from an original source. For instance, if Alice says,
“The next question is, ‘Who in the world am I?’”
and we want to quote part of that, it’s sufficient to write that Alice asks, “Who
in the world am I?”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.]