Q. “Your feedback is important and will help us identify ways to make the company a better workplace.” My habit is to change “ways to make” to “ways of making,” but I’m having trouble explaining why. I’ve looked in CMOS under infinitives and gerunds and elsewhere, but I can’t find a justification. Is there one, and if so, where in CMOS is it?
A. Actually, both wordings are fine. There’s no grammatical reason to prefer one over the other.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is the verb number correct in the following sentence? (I believe that are should be changed to is, but my French coeditor disagrees.) “A case in point are the representatives associated with the 1977 exhibition in New York.” Many thanks!
A. You’re right: the subject of the sentence, case, is singular. Nonetheless, when one out of two editors thinks a construction is wrong, it’s begging for a rewrite—lest half your readers also think it’s wrong. You can switch subject and complement easily: The representatives . . . are a case in point.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question is about this sentence construction: I’m bigger, stronger, and I know more about it. In narration, I would change this to “I’m bigger and stronger, and I know more about it.” But when it appears in dialogue in novels, I’m inclined to leave it as is. What’s Chicago’s take on this construction? Am I right to be fixing it in narration? Thank you!
A. It’s a judgment call. But by editing only the punctuation, you can eliminate the infelicity and retain the original language: I’m bigger, stronger. And I know more about it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should the sound (i.e., pronunciation) of a parenthetically included word be factored in when deciding between a and an? “Patent holders may wish to consider a (preliminary) injunction” or “Patent holders may wish to consider an (preliminary) injunction.” Lots of internet discussion on this one, but I can’t seem to find any definitive answer in style manuals or grammar books.
A. A definitive answer would be hard to find, but the reader can’t skip over the word in parentheses, and either choice is problematic. In most cases like this, there’s little to justify having parentheses in the first place. Removing them is the easiest solution.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS experts, I’m in a debate with my thesis advisor regarding using years or decades as time-stamp adjectives. For instance, I might write: “Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel The Great Gatsby” or “influenced by 1950s rock and roll.” However, my advisor says this is wrong. It should be “Fitzgerald’s novel from 1925 The Great Gatsby” or “rock and roll from the 1950s.” Who is right?
A. You are right, but your advisor is following a zombie rule that won’t die, and there may be no point in arguing. You might ask your advisor to point you to the rule in an up-to-date style manual. You can also point to CMOS 5.83 as support for your own view.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A friend and I are debating over the proper use of as in this sentence: “You are as unique as your style.” My friend believes the sentence requires a verb at the end such as “You are as unique as your style is.” We cannot figure out which construction is correct.
A. The verb is is implied; it’s not necessary to state it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In “Who shall I say is calling?” is who the object of say (and therefore whom would also be acceptable), or is who the subject of is (and therefore whom is wrong)? I always thought one rearranged the order of the sentence to check (“I shall say whom”).
A. Who is the subject of is. When you rearranged the order to check, you stopped too soon: “I shall say who is calling.” I is the main subject, and shall say is the main verb. The entire phrase “who is calling” is the direct object of the main verb, shall say. (If you don’t trust your ear regarding who/whom, switch to a different pronoun and it may become clear whether to use the subject or object form: “I shall say she [not her] is calling.”)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I recently reviewed a scientific test report and my comments included recommendations to correct the use of over 80 instances of passive voice. I rewrote (corrected) each of the instances of passive voice for the author and included them in my comments. The author rejected each of my comments with the rationale that the avoidance of passive voice does not apply to scientific test reports. Is this true?
A. It is true that scientists have a long tradition of using the passive, probably because it is usually clear that the writers performed the actions being described. In such contexts the passive can be more efficient and less distracting than the active (“the temperature was adjusted to 212°F and the beakers were positioned in order of volume” rather than “Roger and I adjusted the temperature to 212°F and Harriet and Waldo positioned them in order of volume”).
On the other hand, passives can obscure the actor in places where it should be revealed (the “mistakes were made” problem). They can also be awkward (“the weights were lifted by the subjects”) or pretentious (“it was concluded that”) or invite a dangler (“after measuring, the beakers were filled”). And when overuse of the passive makes for dull reading, changing some instances to the active voice is an improvement.
Since there is nothing ungrammatical or inherently wrong with the passive and all good prose makes some use of it, it’s hard to say whether you overstepped by trying to eliminate it. But if you marked every instance of the passive as incorrect regardless of whether it caused a problem, then you may have annoyed the writer and damaged your credibility, causing the writer to reject your editing wholesale.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question that my colleague and I can’t find a definitive answer to, and that is whether less or fewer is used with countable, but singular, nouns. For example, “one less/fewer group,” “one less/fewer number,” and so on.
A. If the countable noun is plural, choose fewer; if it’s singular, choose less. (When CMOS says to reserve fewer for countable things, it’s talking about plural countable things. When it says to reserve less for mass nouns, it means singular mass nouns.) One is always singular: there is one less food group in the new pyramid; there is one less number in this column. Two (or more) is plural: there are two fewer food groups in the new pyramid; there are three fewer numbers in this column.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please give me your thoughts on subject/verb agreement in the following construction: “History, and the efforts of many people, [have or has] given this island a valuable gift.” Does an and phrase set off in commas change the number of the verb?
A. It doesn’t. Treat the text between commas as though it were in parentheses. But while you’re at it, notice that the construction is awkward. You aren’t sure which verb to use because neither singular nor plural sounds or looks right. That means no matter which you choose, some readers are also going to think it doesn’t sound right. It would be better to use parentheses or reword the sentence.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]