Q. Does CMOS have a preference on the use of “America” as the country’s name versus the United States or US in formal writing? I know there is a distinction made for the abbreviation versus the spelled-out term, but I am curious if there is a preference on using “America” alone as the noun form of the country, not in reference to the people.
A. Though “America” is often used as shorthand for “the United States of America”—especially in speech—it’s usually better in formal writing to be more specific and use the first part of the name instead: “the United States” (or, to save space or avoid repetition, “the US”).
The adjective “American,” by contrast, is usually acceptable when referring to the United States (as in the phrase “American interests”), provided its meaning is clear from context. If “United-Statesian” weren’t so awkward (the link is to the entry in Merriam-Webster, which spells the adjective with a hyphen), then “American” might be less common than it is. If in doubt, use the adjective “US,” which is acceptable in even the most formal prose.
See also CMOS 10.37 (for “US” versus “United States”) and Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (Oxford, 2022), under “American.”
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are phrases like “The more the merrier” and “The bigger the better” sentences, despite not having a verb?
A. In CMOS 6.50, on commas with “the more,” “the less,” and the like, you’ll find one of those as an example that illustrates when a comma is unnecessary: “The more the merrier.”
As you suggest, that’s a phrase. But when it’s standing alone like that (with an initial capital and a terminal period), it functions as a type of sentence—one that’s elliptical, meaning that one or more words have been left unstated but will be understood by readers, sometimes with the help of context. The adjective elliptical comes from the Greek verb elleipein, “to leave out,” as does the noun ellipsis, which can refer either to an omission of words or to the series of dots (. . .) that can mark such an omission.
If you supply the missing words in your two examples (as we’ve done below, choosing a generic reading for both), it will be clearer that they work as complete sentences, though with some inversion:
The more there is, the merrier it will be. (= It will be merrier to the degree that there is more.)
The bigger it is, the better it will be. (= It will be better to the degree that it is bigger.)
Note the commas, which become necessary when words like the ones underlined above are expressed rather than implied: “The more people we invite to our grammar party, the merrier it will be.”
For the related phenomenon of elliptical sentences like Why? and Yes, see CMOS 5.101. For ellipses (the dots), see 12.59–69.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is the usage of “kindly” in “We would like to kindly ask you . . .” or “This is to kindly remind you to . . .” correct? My understanding is that “kindly” sounds rather rude here, as we are describing ourselves as kind and generous.
A. According to the entry for “kindly” in Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (Oxford, 2022), using that word to refer to the person making the request instead of simply using it like please is a “linguistic misstep,” one that’s typical of “airlinese”—as in “We kindly ask you to take your seats” instead of “Kindly take your seats.”
Misstep or not, it can be rude to praise oneself, as you suggest, so we agree that it’s best to avoid kindly except as a substitute for please. Your sentences could be revised as follows:
We would like to kindly ask you . . .
becomes
Kindly . . .
This is to kindly remind you to . . .
becomes
Please remember to . . .
(To any fans of airlinese out there, kindly accept our most humble apologies for this answer.)
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m reviewing an academic research paper in which the authors describe their process and their findings in the present tense. “We evaluate . . . We analyze . . . We review.” Obviously, these actions have already taken place, so I lean toward changing the sentences to past tense. But perhaps it’s acceptable to use the present tense in academic research, similar to the use of historical present tense in literature. Please help!
A. The historical present can be a reasonable choice for things that can be consulted by others, starting with the paper itself. For example, “In this report, we evaluate three different theories of . . .” Other sources can likewise be referred to in this way: “Smith (2021) argues that . . .”
But for actions as opposed to text, a form of past tense is usually best: “We reviewed the flight logs at five major international airports . . .” The past tense is also usually best when referring to something as predating something else: “In a previous paper, Smith (2020) argued for . . .” Or, “In previous papers, Smith (2018, 2020) has argued for . . .”
If in doubt, default to a form of the past tense, which would work well in any of the examples in this answer except for the first (though you could switch to past if, for example, you were to change “In” to “For”: “For this report, we evaluated . . .”). But if the paper is going to be published in a journal or with a specific publisher, ask that journal or publisher about any preferences related to verb tenses; also look at recently published articles in your field.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does CMOS have guidelines about using “where” to refer to something other than a place? For example, “This is a situation where extra care is needed.”
A. We don’t, but Bryan Garner, the author of chapter 5 in CMOS (on grammar and usage), does. See Garner’s Modern English Usage (5th ed., Oxford, 2022), under “where.” That entry has two relevant subentries: (1) on where for in which and (2) on where for when.
The first subentry explains that in formal prose, the locative where shouldn’t be used as a relative pronoun, as when a phrase like “a case where” is used instead of “a case in which.” But in prose with a “relaxed tone,” including text with contractions (like many of the answers in this Q&A), where is not only acceptable but may even be preferable.
Your example (“a situation where”) seems perfectly OK to us, but if you are going for a formal, elevated style, change “where” to “in which.”
As for where in place of when (which is temporal rather than locative—i.e., referring to time instead of place), Garner says that writers who do this have “misused” the word. So, for example, you should write “a year when,” not “a year where.”
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is the following sentence correct? “Do the speaker or the characters have any specific personality traits that are highlighted throughout the poem?” According to CMOS 5.143, “When a verb has two or more subjects connected by or or nor, the verb agrees with the last-named subject” (e.g., “Bob or his friends have your key”; “neither the twins nor Jon is prepared to leave”). Based on that, it seems like it would be correct. “Characters” is closest to the verb, so that part is correct. I’m wondering if the auxiliary verb should match the verb or the subject closest to it? “Do the speaker or the characters have . . .” “Does the speaker or the characters have . . .” I’m probably overthinking this, but I can’t find any definitive answers when it comes to questions with compound subjects—one singular and one plural—joined by “or.” Could you point me to a rule that might address this? Thank you for your help.
A. We haven’t been able to find anything definitive either. So let’s try to invent something—we can call it the inverted-proximity rule—by adding on to the current wording in CMOS 5.143 (the new part is underlined):
When a verb has two or more subjects connected by or or nor, the verb agrees with the last-named subject; however, in a question that begins with an auxiliary verb, the auxiliary usually agrees with the first-named subject.
Here’s what that would look like relative to your example, starting with each subject used alone (and shortening your original predicate to make the examples easier to digest):
Does the speaker have any faults?
Do the characters have any faults?
Does the speaker or the characters have any faults?
That last example, where the auxiliary “Does” agrees with the subject “speaker,” seems to work well enough. But so does “Do the speaker or the characters have . . .” The problem with any rule based on a subject’s proximity to the verb is that a singular and a plural subject joined by or will tend to read as plural regardless of the order of subjects.
The remedy for questions, when you don’t like the result, is to put the plural subject first: “Do the characters or the speaker have any faults?” That fix can work for statements also: “Either Bob or his friends have your key” seems to work slightly better than “Either Bob’s friends or Bob has your key.”
In sum, for a plural and a singular subject joined by or (or nor), apply the proximity rule as stated above; if the result seems awkward, try switching the order of subjects.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. “Neither I/me nor my dog responded.” Should it be “me” or “I”?
A. The correct form of pronoun in sentences like yours can usually be figured out by considering the pronoun separately from the noun that it’s paired with. In your sentence, that process would look like this:
I/me didn’t respond.
plus
My dog didn’t respond.
equals
Neither I/me nor my dog responded.
If your goal is to use Standard English, the correct form would be “I didn’t respond,” which answers your question: “Neither I nor my dog responded.” See also CMOS 5.44; for more on Standard English, see 5.4.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. MS Word doesn’t like the “of” in this sentence: “All of these valves are on separate channels.” It puts a blue dotted line under “All of” and wants to get rid of the word “of” even though “of” starts a prepositional phrase. Is this some new trend? I know I could reword the sentence to read “These valves are all on separate channels,” but that seems to be a lot of work for what used to be (what I thought was) normal.
A. According to Bryan Garner, all the has been more common than all of the “since the beginnings of Modern English,” a pattern that holds when a word like its—or these in your example—is substituted for the. A Google Books Ngram comparing the frequency of the phrases all the things and all these things with and without of in published sources since 1800 backs this up. Substitute valves for things and the of-less versions are still in the lead. So it’s not a new trend. For whatever reason, the preposition of has long been considered optional or unnecessary in sentences like yours.
Still, as Garner notes, there are some exceptions, including when all is followed by a pronoun that isn’t either demonstrative or possessive, as in all of it (not all it). See Garner’s Modern English Usage (5th ed., Oxford, 2022), under “all. A. All (of).”
OK, but—exceptions aside—should you change all of to all “whenever possible,” as Garner suggests and Word supports? Yes, if you’re looking to cut unnecessary words, as editors usually are. But the phrase all of is just as correct as some of, many of, and most of—grammatically similar phrases that all require of where it might be optional after all.
So if you happen to think that all of works better than all in any given sentence, simply ignore the dotted blue underline, which is triggered by one of Word’s checks for “conciseness.” Most editors understand the value of being concise, but we also want things to sound natural.
Tip: In the desktop version of Word for Windows, the conciseness checks are listed in the Grammar Settings dialog box, which you’ll find by going to File > Options > Proofing, under Writing Style > Grammar & Refinements > Settings. If the box next to Wordiness (under the options for Conciseness) is checked, that’s what’s causing Word to flag all of. (Settings in Word for Mac will be similar.)
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does CMOS prefer the use of “persons” or “people” when describing a collection of human beings, such as you might find at a grocery store?
A. More than one person at a grocery store would normally be referred to as people, not persons. According to Garner’s Modern English Usage, the traditional distinction between persons for smaller numbers (especially of specific people) and people for larger numbers (especially of people considered more generally) has fallen out of style in favor of people in most contexts (5th ed. [Oxford, 2022], under “people. A. And persons”).
So one might have once referred to the people at the grocery store but the two persons ahead of me in line. Today, people is usually considered to be the more natural choice for both and can be used just about anywhere the plural is called for.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is correct: “one should do one’s duty” or “one should do his or her duty”—or, using singular they, “one should do their duty”?
A. In your example, one is closer to the personal pronoun you than to the indefinite pronoun everyone. Everyone would normally pair with his, her, or singular their, as in everyone should do their duty (see also CMOS 5.51). One, by contrast, can simply switch to the possessive case like other such pronouns:
I should do my duty; you should do your duty; he should do his duty; she should do her duty; they should do their duty; we should do our duty; one should do one’s duty
According to Bryan Garner, however, writers have tended to pair one with he (and, by extension, one with his), despite objections from “strict grammarians” and others (see Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. [Oxford, 2022], under “One . . . he”).
We can only hope, then, that we’re doing our duty as arbiters of style by recommending a pairing of one with one’s.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]