Q. I am editing a first-edition ecology textbook, which uses both footnotes in tables and variables in equations. In the first
chapter, the author italicized the variables, and I added italic to the footnote superscripts. However, a subsequent chapter
(written by a different author) does not use italics in equation variables set in text or their subscripts. In situations
such as this, is it my responsibility to set a style, or should I follow the author’s style? I find
that these contradictory situations occur with regard to hyphenations and such as well. Please help me put an end to this
type of confusion!
A. This is exactly what style manuals were invented for: so that editors can impose consistency as they read without stopping
to ponder each issue as it arises. Style manuals also tend to be based on long-term observation of style trends, so that consulting
a manual can save an editor from an embarrassing departure from convention. Rather than let whichever author comes first in
the book dictate the style (do I hear a collective gasp?), check a manual like CMOS and find that footnote superscripts are normally set in roman type and mathematical variables are set in italics.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is there a standard for replacing an expletive with special $%!# characters?
A. Although there isn’t a steady demand for masked expletives in scholarly prose, this is weirdly one of our frequently asked questions. (I have to wonder who is reading the Q&A—and what they are writing.) The symbols are fine for cartoons and email messages, where you may arrange them in whatever order pleases you. In formal prose, however, we find that a 2-em dash makes a d——d fine replacement device.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question has to do with the direction of an apostrophe at the beginning of shortened versions of longer words. For example,
“’zine” for “magazine”
or “’cause” for “because.”
In transcribed interviews, I sometimes run into this. Should the apostrophe close toward the word or away from it? Thanks.
A. Apostrophes come in only one shape, which happens to be the same as that of the single end quotation mark. In word-processed
documents, however, when apostrophes are preceded by a space (as opposed to those in the middle of a word, like “it’s”),
the software thinks the writer wants an opening quotation mark and supplies one. When documents aren’t
proofread carefully, these marks appear in place of apostrophes. (This is only one reason why I’m not
worried about being replaced by a computer anytime soon.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When and how often is it appropriate to use the slash (/) character that delineates terms of similar meaning?
A. Use it until just before it becomes annoying. (You get to decide when that is.) See CMOS 6.105–13 for more on the slash.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the rule for placing accents over capital letters in Romance languages? Is it the same for French, Spanish, and Italian, or does each language have different requirements?
A. The tendency to dispense with accents on capital letters does vary across languages. It is a common practice, for example, in French and Portuguese, less so in Italian and Spanish. This is at least partly a function of the larger number of accents in French and in Portuguese—not just more accents but more capitalized letters that would take an accent. Reasons for dropping accents from capital letters have ranged from the difficulty of employing such letters in older typesetting environments to the disputed role of accents in the modern world. Even today, the awkwardness of achieving them on computer keyboards—especially those whose default is English—continues to undermine their use. But this difficulty has become increasingly minor with advances in software applications—it’s barely an inconvenience, really—and there are fewer excuses not to use accents on capital letters as necessary. In sum, it’s best to use them. The Académie française, by the way, has issued a nice statement of policy in support of accents on capital letters that could apply to other languages (see “Accentuation des majuscules” under “Questions de langue”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can you tell me the CMOS preferred style for printed quotation marks: typographer’s marks or the default straight-line marks?
A. Typographer’s marks are superior, though they are not always easy to implement. The unidirectional straight-up-and-down marks signal a technological limitation of one or another sort. Most typewriter manufacturers chose to include only one key for quotation marks and apostrophes, and most keyboard makers followed suit. The result has been that most people depend on software to generate the proper mark, and software isn’t foolproof (despite what one term for typographer’s quotation marks, “smart quotes,” might imply). If you want, for example, an apostrophe rather than an opening single quotation mark at the beginning of a string (e.g., the apostrophe before the n in “rock ’n’ roll”), you must tell the computer that that’s what you want. Word processors usually have a built-in keystroke combination that results in an apostrophe (’) regardless of the position of the cursor relative to other text. In the 1980s and early ’90s, software for the average user was a little less sophisticated than it is now, and word processors tended to ship without defaulting to typographer’s quotation marks. This only encouraged the infiltration of “dumb quotes” into the heretofore professionally typeset world of media like television and magazine advertisements, now often created on the desktop by software available to professionals and laypersons alike. And today, with the proliferation of the internet, we are practically back to square one. On this site we use directional marks that will display correctly in most browsers; this approach is not, however, that easy to implement in HTML. Straight-up-and-down marks are still, for reasons of technological expediency, the majority on the internet.
That’s a long way of saying that the unidirectional marks are a compromise and therefore inferior to the typographer’s marks. If you’ve got the technology, flaunt it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We’ve been having a discussion in the office about whether to continue using diacritical marks on words such as decor and applique. The arguments turn on whether we consider them to be proper English words instead of imports, due to their familiarity to English speakers and the length of time that they’ve been part of the language. We couldn’t find a place where the editors addressed this issue in CMOS. Could you give us an opinion, please?
A. Generally, we leave such things to the dictionary. Our main arbiter in matters of spelling—Merriam-Webster—tends to preserve diacritics in words that are direct imports, especially when they are essential to pronunciation. So write appliqué, which happens to be the only option given in M-W. In the case of decor, the accent isn’t absolutely essential to pronunciation; that may be the reason M-W allows either decor or décor.
In any case, it is not true that English is without accents. I would guess that accents were often dropped in published material many years ago because of the extra difficulty of typesetting them—especially in the case of a word like façade (M-W prefers facade but allows façade; American Heritage prefers façade but allows facade). On that basis, I would guess that in the future, accents will become more rather than less common in English.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]