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.]
Q. If I’m making a song title possessive and the song title is plural, what would I do? For example, would
I write . . .
“Wild Horses” ’ bass line is so dang
good.
“Wild Horses’ ” bass line is so dang
good.
or
“Wild Horses” ’s bass line is so dang
good.
You might say that I should write, “The bass line in ‘Wild Horses’
is so dang good,” but let’s pretend I’m constrained by a
website field character limit that won’t let me add the two extra words to rephrase it like that.
A. You could write “The ‘Wild Horses’ bass line is so dang
good,” using “Wild Horses” attributively instead of as a
possessive. If you don’t have room, you can always leave out the “dang.”
(Although I know it’s not the same.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When is it appropriate to use quotation marks to set off a term that is being defined or described in academic writing? I edit casebooks and journal articles for law professors, and authors will often write sentences such as:
It will be helpful first to explore the meaning of the concepts of “public health” and the “common good.”
I find quotation marks unnecessary unless they are used to set off words coined by the author or if their usage is not standard. What do you think?
A. I agree that the quotation marks aren’t needed in the sentence you cite, but the difference between that sentence and one like the following, where the quotation marks would be standard, is subtle:
It will be helpful first to explore the meaning of the phrases “public health” and the “common good.”
Although those phrases aren’t coined by the author or used in a nonstandard way, it’s conventional to quote or use italics for words or phrases being introduced or defined (CMOS 7.63). For that reason, I wouldn’t fuss if an author wanted to keep the quotation marks in sentences like the one you quote.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We do a lot of excerpts from articles and books at my job. But folks here are unhappy because they cannot distinguish between ellipses that existed in the originals and ones that we have inserted to indicate missing material. I can find no mention of how to deal with this quandary in The Chicago Manual of Style. Please help—many reprints lie ahead!
A. If you’re going to mix original and editorial ellipses, you should alert the reader that you’re doing it, either up front or in a footnote at the first occurrence. Explain that you will put editorial dots (as opposed to original ones) in square brackets [. . .], or devise some other system that makes sense to you and your colleagues. For instance, you could insert “[Ellipsis in original.]” in a note or in the text at the end of the sentence in question, although this will become annoying if there are many such instances.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS, I’m proofreading a reissue of a children’s mystery novel. The following appears
in the original edition: “I said don’t move.” Is this styled
and punctuated correctly? I feel I should recast it to “I said, ‘Don’t
move.’ ” But something about the brevity of the command “don’t
move” makes me waver and want to leave it as is (or find another punctuation style), treating the line
as one might treat “I said no.” I can’t seem to wrap my
head around this. Help! Many thanks.
A. Yes, the more simple punctuation is appropriate here. The strictly correct punctuation and capping might seem pedantic in
that context.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In quoting historical letters or correspondence, what is the current accepted practice as far as leaving mistakes or clarifying mistakes for modern readers? Is it dependent on the work?
A. In scholarly publishing, corrections must be acknowledged, either with the use of interpolations in square brackets or explanations in the notes. Using [ sic] to note that an error occurred in the original is also conventional. Some minor errors or typos may be corrected without acknowledgment. All this requires considerable editorial judgment. Please see CMOS 13.4, 13.7, and 13.61 for more guidance.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am working on a book about writing. May I quote briefly from the published work of other writers, with full attribution?
By “briefly,” I mean no more than two sentences. Thank you.
A. Yes, you may. But if you are writing a book about writing, you should run to the nearest library or bookstore and read as much as you can on the complex matters of documentation and permissions.
It’s your responsibility. If you goof up in this regard, at best no agent or editor will take you seriously;
at worst, you could end up in legal trouble.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am currently editing a lengthy manuscript made up almost entirely of quotations made by a dead person to a living person. The living person is what is known as a “channeler.” Since the living person is quoting what the dead person tells her, how do I handle the quotes? The dead person is of such stature that giving the quotes to the living person does not seem right. Any help you can give me is much appreciated.
A. If you want to represent the dead person as truly speaking through the channeler, then by all means quote the dead person as if he or she is physically speaking, even if it is the living person’s voice box that is being used for turning spirit or thought into physical vibrations in the air. If you do this well, it will be clear enough what is going on (though you may want to outline your methods in an introductory paragraph). I think that it would be more awkward to keep having to resort to something like “the channeler, speaking the voice of the dead person, then said. . . .”
You might consider some alternative approaches. The rather convoluted narrative voices in Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom! were differentiated in a variety of ways, most of them verbal, but some of them typographical. For example, you might decide to use unquoted italic type for everything that the dead person says through the channeler—or for everything that the dead person does not say. Whatever approach you use, try to maximize the transparency with which different voices can be distinguished. (And for more ideas, see CMOS 13.39–45, which includes discussions of unspoken and indirect discourse.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation marks, but do the British do it that way too???
A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see CMOS 6.9), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]