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.]
Q. Is it correct to say, “The cost of the widget is 300 percent of its counterpart”? I’m wondering if this should be “The cost of the widget is 300 percent more than its counterpart.”
A. “Percent of” means something different from “percent more than.” It might be easier to understand if you use a different number: 50 percent of 100 people equals 50 people, whereas 50 percent more than 100 people equals 150 people. So although I can’t tell you the answer without knowing the cost of the widget and the cost of its counterpart, “300 percent of the cost” means three times the cost; “300 percent more than the cost” means the cost plus 300 percent of the cost (cost times 4). Since many people don’t know the difference, avoid those expressions and say exactly what you mean (e.g., “costs three times as much” or “costs $850 more than”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do you use a or an before a word that begins with the letter S?
A. If the S is pronounced with a hissing sound (“sss”), use a: a snack. If the S is pronounced as the letter S (“ess”), use an: an SVGA cable.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Some guidance, please, on the use of (s) to indicate that a noun may be singular or plural, as in “The manager will interview the candidate(s).” I use the plural candidates to indicate there is at least one candidate but have been getting pushback from authors who ask for the source of my decision.
A. Although we aren’t crazy about the (s) solution, we do use it at times in CMOS. Another solution is to write “candidate or candidates,” but that’s a little clunky. Simply using the plural is often a good solution, but if it gives the wrong impression (e.g., that if there’s only one candidate, someone other than the manager will interview), then avoid it in favor of clarity.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does this dedication need correction? “This book is dedicated to my kids, who I’m crazy about” or “This book is dedicated to my kids, whom I’m crazy about”?
A. You could leave who as it is, but whom is more appropriate for a book dedication, even though it might look stuffy in other contexts. The preposition at the end is just fine, however.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Can we start a sentence with But?
A. Yes—it’s perfectly grammatical. (But watch out for sticklers who haven’t read a grammar book since they were in high school!)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In copyediting technical material, I often come across constructions such as “Results show that a potential source of chemical X may exist beneath building Y.” This sounds like hedging to me. Does one really need both the potential and the may? Wouldn’t either “Results show that a source of chemical X may exist beneath building Y” or “Results show that a potential source of chemical X exists beneath building Y” suffice?
A. Although academic writers sometimes overqualify their statements to the point of meaninglessness, two points are being made in your sentence: (1) a source may exist beneath the building, and (2) the source might yield chemical X. Your first revision is probably OK, although it is not as clear as the original, but the second revision changes the meaning, since it states that a substance is definitely under the building. In short, the original is clearest.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]