Q. Hello! Is the following sentence grammatically correct? “Good news is, at Microsoft we are here to help!”
A. Your sentence is casual—almost slangy—because it leaves out words for the listener/reader to fill in: “The good news is that at Microsoft we are here to help!” Although your sentence is technically grammatical, it doesn’t reflect formal English grammar. Of course, in advertising not many people expect formal English grammar.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. An author suggests teachers “videotape” themselves presenting a lesson so they can watch and critique their lesson later. I tried changing “videotape” to “video record,” but I think that’s too awkward. And just “record” could mean audio only. Do you think I should blaze a trail for retaining the technically inaccurate “videotape”? Seriously, what term will we use down the road when we’re using who-knows-what technology? Perhaps we should have dug in heels with “film” as a verb. “Film yourself teaching”?
A. Blaze away; we’ll see how many follow. When an expression develops a clear generic meaning and widespread usage in nontechnical contexts, however, it has the potential to outlive its literal meaning. After all, if we can “print” to PDF and “cc” someone on an email, I guess we can videotape a lesson.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How might I best explain to my students the difference—if any—between recur and reoccur? They seem to be unaware of the former.
A. Depending on the age and skills of your students, one way would be to have them look up recur, occur, and reoccur in a good dictionary. Get them to look at the Latin root (currere) and prefixes (re, ob). Look at all the definitions.
Sometimes a difference in word meanings can be intuited from examples. To encourage this type of understanding, challenge the students to write a sentence using recur or reoccur that does not work if the other word is used instead. In this way they might figure out that the two words don’t share every meaning.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Many of our news blurbs contain conference and presentation titles. Folks here, including the head of the organization, insist on constructing sentences with titles thus: “He gave a presentation on ‘Planetary Boundaries and Peacebuilding’ in a parallel session of the conference.” I have explained that this must be recast, either omitting the preposition and adding commas (gave a presentation, “Planetary Boundaries”) or retaining the preposition and translating the title into lowercase (gave a presentation on planetary boundaries and peacebuilding). But everyone here ignores my suggestion. My understanding is that it is a non-negotiable grammatical error, but the error is so widespread, at least in science circles, that I’m beginning to wonder now if it is permissible in other style guides. Is there anything you can tell me to bolster my case?
A. There are some nonnegotiable grammar errors, but this is probably not one of them. The rule (CMOS 8.174) was made to prevent misunderstanding. For instance, in your original sentence, it’s not clear whether the presenter was speaking about a published article titled “Planetary Boundaries and Peacebuilding” or whether that was the title of his own talk. Much of the time, readers will know what you mean whichever way you style it. When there’s a risk of ambiguity, however, it’s worth enforcing the rule.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a Q&A some time ago, you said, “In other words, use the unless the abbreviation is used as an adjective or unless the abbreviation spelled out wouldn’t take a definite article.” My question is: since there is only one definite article in English (the), is a in the expression “a definite article” correct?
A. It’s conventional to refer to “the definite article,” but that doesn’t mean that “a definite article” is nonsense. If there were only one definite article in the whole world available for use, after which no one could use another one, then maybe you would have a point. But we can use the as many times in a sentence as we like—there is an unlimited supply. “The cat climbed the tree in the forest” has three. We can put a [sic] definite article in front of all kinds of words: nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and so on.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m working on a write-up about women’s soccer, and I’m unclear about how to describe the athletes. Woman athlete? Female athlete?
Q. During the past few years, many people have developed the habit of beginning a sentence with the word so, typically when they are responding to a question. This includes politicians, talking heads on television, and others who one might think are “learned” individuals. My view is that the use of the initial so in a sentence is both unnecessary and annoying. Any thoughts? Thank you.
A. There have always been “throat-clearing” words. Even highly intelligent professional speakers need a little thinking room to organize thoughts before speaking. So is no worse than well or um. The trick is not to be annoyed.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I would like to know more about the use of the modals can and may. Here in Brazil it is being taught that both can be used, as in “Can/May I erase the board?” Could you please distinguish both for me?
A. Traditionally, “Can I?” means “Am I able to?” whereas “May I?” means “Do I have permission to”?
Can I lift six times my weight? Can I get to the parking lot through this alley?
May I take your plate? May I go ahead of you in line?
This use of may is dying, however. We tend to hear it from grandparents when a child asks “Can I have some candy?” and the grandparent replies “May I!” Although it’s not rude to use can when you are asking permission, it is incorrect to use may when asking whether something is possible.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS Editors, Although strict grammar would suggest that “if I had been you, I wouldn’t have done that” is correct, I feel that using “if I had been you” in this case instead of “if I were you” implies that the condition of my being you is impossible only in the past and may somehow have become more possible as time went on. Because it is not a changeable condition—I cannot be you, whether in the past or the present—I feel that “if I were you” is the right conditional to use in this example. I have not been able to find an authoritative explanation either way. What do you reckon?
A. This isn’t philosophy—it’s just grammar. “If I were you” puts the reader in the present. If you want to stage “if I were you” in the past, it becomes “if I had been you.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. “The larger the parameter, the smaller the region.” This construction is just fine, but what’s the justification for implied rather than fully present verbs? Why don’t we get to imply parts of speech whenever we want to? And as an editor, am I wrong to delete the verbs when they are used? “The larger the parameter is, the smaller is the region”?
A. You are right to delete the verbs. Your first version is idiomatic English; the second is pedantic overkill. As for your whys and wherefores, I’m afraid you will need a linguist rather than a style guide to get the technical backstory. Let us know what you find out!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]