Q. Many of my clients (graduate students and researchers) want to use the term “post COVID” to mean “after the COVID-19 pandemic,” as in “Returning from Remote Work post COVID.” I believe this would make “post” a preposition, and that’s not one of the parts of speech for “post” listed in Merriam-Webster. The dictionary gives examples of “post” as a prefix for verbs, nouns, and adjectives. So “post-COVID symptoms” is fine, of course. It appears that using “post COVID” to mean “after the pandemic” has become installed in our everyday language due to the familiarity of “post-COVID” as a compound adjective. That doesn’t mean it can be used as a preposition, does it? You couldn’t say, for example, “I’m going jogging post breakfast.” So I think “I’m going back to the gym post COVID” is equally incorrect. What is your take on this? Thank you very much!
A. We agree that the prefix post- functions as a preposition when you remove the hyphen. But we also agree that it’s a little early to declare a post-post-as-prefix world, at least in edited prose intended for publication—though the OED does include the prepositional sense for post, dating it to 1965.
Instead, we’d advise keeping the hyphen and treating the compound as an adverb: “Returning from Remote Work Post-COVID.” Without the hyphen, Post is subject to a momentary misreading (possibly as a noun), and because it isn’t a typical preposition, lowercase “post” might look odd.
For what it’s worth, the OED’s examples of prepositional post seem relatively casual and potentially ambiguous (e.g., “Now, post the increase . . .”; “Post the Geneva meeting of Opec . . .”).* The term will be more familiar as a prefix, and you can keep the capital P.†
* In British style, it’s normal to spell acronyms with an initial cap (as in Opec for OPEC—or Covid for COVID).
† The OED records several post- adjectives that, like “Post-COVID” in the example headline above, can also be used as adverbs. Most of our readers would probably be familiar with the adverb post-publication. If not, get back to us post-lunch (another OED entry). (Chicago style would normally call for postpublication and postlunch, though some editors would retain a hyphen in one or both of those terms for the sake of clarity. For more on this subject, see “Prefixes: A Nonissue, or a Non-Issue?” at CMOS Shop Talk.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does Chicago prefer “whosever” or “whoever’s”?
A. We’d follow the advice in Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (2022): “Whosever is the traditionally correct form, but it’s very much on the wane. Whoever’s is now the preferred colloquial form” (see the entry “whoever; whomever: B. Possessive Forms”).
In other words, practically nobody uses whosever anymore, so you’re better off with whoever’s, at least in contexts that are less than formal. For example, Whoever’s [not Whosever] car is parked on the sidewalk needs to move it.
If the context is formal, however, you should probably avoid this awkward construction. Whoever is responsible for editing your prose [not Whoever’s job it is to edit your prose, and not Whosever job it is to edit your prose] will thank you, whoever you might be.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS! I have a grammar question that has thrown our small department into a tizzy. In a sentence like “There are an even number of kittens on the veranda,” we are evenly split (pun intended!) as to whether “There are” is correct since there are a plural number of kittens or “There is” is correct because the number is (see? “is”) even. We’ve checked Garner’s entry for “number of,” which seems to throw down in favor of “there are,” but those of us in the “there is” contingent aren’t convinced. Any light the CMOS team can shed on this?
A. The expression “a number of” is an idiomatic phrase that means “some” or “several,” which is why a plural verb would normally be expected after “a number of kittens” used by itself: A number of kittens [or Some kittens] are on the veranda—or, if you invert the sentence, There are a number of kittens [or some kittens] on the veranda.
But if you change a to the, the idiom goes away, and the focus switches to the word number itself, making a singular verb the correct choice: The number of kittens on the veranda is huge. If you then invert that, however, you’re back to the plural: A huge number of kittens are on the veranda. So far, we’re mostly in line with Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (2022), under “number of.”
But huge in that inverted example keeps things idiomatically plural: A huge number of kittens simply means lots of kittens, an expression that requires a plural verb. An even number, by contrast, means just what it says: a number that’s even instead of odd. And though it isn’t one of the examples featured in Garner, an even number doesn’t seem to have an obvious plural idiomatic equivalent like some or lots that could replace it; therefore, a singular verb is arguably the better choice: There is an even number of kittens on the veranda.
In other words, the number of kittens on the veranda is even (🐈🐈🐈🐈) rather than odd (🐈🐈🐈), an observation that puts the number ahead of the kittens. Nothing is certain when it comes to kittens, but that’s our take.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS, As regards a foreign word that needs to remain in its original language in a lengthy comparative analysis, would you inflect this word so as to reflect its grammatical position in a sentence consistent with its inflection in the original language? The word at issue is Pflichtteilsberechtigter (roughly, a forced heir). In its original German, the singular of the word could be either Pflichtteilsberechtigte or Pflichtteilsberechtigter, depending on whether it is preceded, respectively, by a definite or an indefinite article. As a plural, it could be either Pflichtteilsberechtigten or Pflichtteilsberechtigte, depending on whether it is preceded, respectively, by a definite article or a zero article.
Consistent with German grammar, the word would be spelled/inflected as follows in these four sample sentences (the first two being singular usages and the second two plural usages): “A Pflichtteilsberechtigter enjoys special rights in German succession law. The Pflichtteilsberechtigte, the son of the deceased, sued the testamentary heir for a portion of the estate. Courts require Pflichtteilsberechtigte to submit certain forms. In the case at issue, the court required the Pflichtteilsberechtigten to first appear before a notary.”
Employing spellings consistent with German grammatical rules on inflection could potentially confuse readers unfamiliar with these rules (or leave them thinking the writer/editor has been careless!). But adopting a wholesale simplification (e.g., writing Pflichtteilsberechtigter whenever it is a singular usage and Pflichtteilsberechtigte whenever it is a plural usage and not further inflecting according to German grammar) could confuse—or at least annoy—those readers who will have an appreciation of German, which will likely be significant in this case. We look forward to any input you have to offer!
A. Extrapolating from CMOS 11.3, it’s usually best to inflect a non-English word that hasn’t been anglicized just as it would be in the original language, as when referring to more than one Blume (flower) as Blumen (flowers).
Accordingly, the examples in your second paragraph seem good to us, with one possible caveat. Out of context, it may not be obvious to all readers that “the Pflichtteilsberechtigten” in your last sentence is supposed to be plural. If necessary, you could rephrase—for example, as “each Pflichtteilsberechtigte,” where the German noun is now clearly singular (and inflected as it would be following the)—or whatever best conveys the intended meaning.
But you should consider explaining for your readers how these inflections work—for example, in a note the first time one of these terms appears in your text. The explanation near the beginning of your question (“In its original German, . . .”) could easily form the basis of such a note.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A few of us are curious which is the correct wording of this sentence per CMOS guidelines: “They blotted out any distant landmark, enclosing Luke and I in a foreign landscape.” Should the words be “Luke and I” or “Luke and me”?
A. “Luke and me” would be correct in that context. That’s because (as the people who write grammar books generally agree) the choice of subject or object for a pronoun used by itself remains the same when that pronoun is used with one or more additional nouns or pronouns.
So just as most of us wouldn’t write that something was “enclosing I in a foreign landscape,” we shouldn’t write that it was “enclosing Luke and I.” And though people who use “Luke and I” in this way may argue that they’re treating it as a sort of invariable compound noun, it’s still wrong. Let’s just say that many editors hope this I-as-object phenomenon fades away.
For a look at a related problem, see “ ‘Hazel and I’s Puppy’? When Fiction Meets Bad Grammar,” in Fiction+ at CMOS Shop Talk.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do you treat a species as singular or plural? For example, would you say “Sporosarcina pasteurii cause” or “causes”?
A. Strictly speaking, a binomial species name, which refers collectively to a group of organisms, is grammatically singular. So you’d write (for example) that Sporosarcina pasteurii causes the phenomenon of microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation.
Or, using a more well-known example, Musca domestica poses a threat to both humans and animals. This convention overlaps with the way common names are often referred to. For example, you might say that the housefly, Musca domestica, poses a threat to people and animals. But what you really mean is that houseflies (plural) pose this threat.
For a fascinating take on these conventions, see Kevin de Queiroz, “Plural versus Singular Common Names for Amphibian and Reptile Species,” Herpetological Review 42, no. 3 (2011): 339–42.
See also Scientific Style and Format, 8th ed. (Council of Science Editors and University of Chicago Press, 2014), 22.2.1.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If I were to address multiple friends, would it be more appropriate to begin with “Does any of y’all . . .” or “Do any of y’all . . .”? I would have thought the former was correct because “any” could be singular (as in “any one of my interlocutors”), but my partner thinks the latter is correct. I’m willing to be wrong, but I want to know why! Can CMOS weigh in?
A. According to Bryan Garner’s Modern English Usage (5th ed., 2022), under “any (B)”: “Any may take either a singular or a plural verb. The singular use is fairly rare.” And when it’s treated as singular despite being followed by “of” plus a plural noun, “any is elliptical for any one; the sentence often reads better if one is retained.”
So if you want to make sure others understand your use as singular, don’t be elliptical about things. In other words, retain one: “Does any one of y’all . . .” Otherwise, treat any as plural: “Do any of y’all . . .” And note that any one is two words in this context. Compare “Does anyone know . . .”—where the indefinite pronoun anyone is one word (and, like any one, singular).
In sum, you’re both right, but your partner’s version, which doesn’t rely on reading “any” as elliptical for “any one,” is best.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the following sentence, I would rather omit all but the first article to make the sentence more concise: “It can be a professor, a boss, an adviser, or a coach.” But can I do this even though an “a” would not be used before “adviser”? In other words, would “a professor, boss, adviser, or coach” be correct?
A. Think of the n in “an” as a temporary intervention that’s used only to prevent the glottal stop that would result from saying “a adviser” out loud (or in one’s head). It’s purely a concession to speech, having no grammatical significance; “an” means exactly the same thing as “a.” If you decide to omit the article, there’s no need to worry about that n.
And you can drop the articles in a series after the first, provided they’re all the same type—either definite (the) or indefinite (a, an)—and provided the sentence remains clear without them (as is the case with your example).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In compound sentences, should the verb tenses match?
A. We first saw this question more than a month ago (past indicative), but only now are we publishing our answer (present progressive), which we hope will have reached you in time (present indicative followed by future perfect). Verb tenses can and should change as needed, even in the middle of a sentence, to describe things that occur at different times.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I searched in vain for guidance about the use of the word “early” in expressions like “in the early twentieth century.” What is the maximum number of years (five, ten, twenty-five) that would still make sense? Could we consider this to mean “in the first quarter of the twentieth century”?
A. The word “early” will always be an approximation. But we like your idea of using a quarter century as the cutoff point, which would allow us to define “early” as anything that happens up to about 1925, “middle” as the fifty-year period from 1925 to 1975, and “late” as anything after 1975.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]