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.]
Q. In paragraph 13.7, in the section on permissible changes to quotations, CMOS says, “Obvious typographic errors may be corrected silently (without comment or sic; see 13.61) unless the passage quoted is from an older work or a manuscript or other unpublished source where idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved.” Earlier in the passage, CMOS states that direct quotes must reproduce exactly not only the wording but the spelling, capitalization, and internal punctuation of the original. It does not mention italicizing. When I’ve edited quotes or extracts from older texts, I’ve, as a rule, reproduced pretty much “everything” as it is in the older text. I am editing a book now with numerous quotes from seventeenth-century books or letters, referencing ships. Before launching forth, thought I would double check. Seems ship names were not italicized back then. My thought is to leave as they are in the original—as roman. That is, do not italicize ship names in the quotes or extracts. Would this be correct?
A. In addition to spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, I’d also preserve the distinction in the original between italic and roman type. It is certainly necessary to retain any italics in quoted text that are there for reasons of emphasis, but it’s also probably best to retain italics used for other reasons and, by the same token, refrain from adding italics (you can of course add italics within a quotation for the purposes of your own emphasis, as long as you clearly indicate where you’ve done this with a bracketed phrase such as “emphasis added”). But the line is not always a clearly etched one. You need not necessarily italicize a quoted passage that’s been presented entirely in italic type, for example. And if you quote a subhead that’s been italicized in the original source for reasons of design, you can certainly present it in roman. Just make sure that whatever you do, do not obscure the meaning of the original passage.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The following is a two-part quotation mark question: Is a quotation nested within a separate quotation of double quotes recognized by an additional set of double quotes? Or is the quotation in question enclosed by single quotes? If my question hasn’t confused you, perhaps my example will. The court transcript detailed Jack’s recollection of that fateful day. Jack took the stand and began his testimony. “Your honor, I distinctly remember Jill saying to me, “Jack, I will never climb that hill. Furthermore, what good is a pail of water?”” Please advise.
A. Quotation marks alternate, as follows: quotations within quotations are single, quotations within quotations within quotations are double, quotations within quotations within quotations within quotations are single, etc.
He said, “I have one request: never say ‘never say “never” ’ again.”
I hope this is clear enough. For more information, start with CMOS 13.30.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]