Q. The other day a colleague asked me if it’s permissible to use the expression “a momentum” in a sentence. I told him that momentum is a noncount noun and isn’t normally used with articles (a or the). In fact, after a cursory search, I could not find such a usage online. However, the sentence “we’ve built up such a momentum” sounds correct (or at least not wrong) to my ear. So I later emailed him to say that it’s correct to use momentum without an article, but it isn’t wrong to use an article. Am I being wishy-washy?
A. My own cursory search shows that “a momentum” is correct in many contexts. So yes, you were wishy-washy—but wishy-washy is better than dogmatic when you’re wrong.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What does The Chicago Manual of Style recommend for the usage of make vs. makes?
Q. Is it grammatically correct to say that “a nation or a society built a barrier or a wall”? Is it implied that we are talking about the citizens doing the building?
A. Yes and yes. The grammar is fine, and in English it’s normal to say or write expressions that are not meant to be taken literally. We sit on a jury. We stand on a principle. The United States sent a rocket to the moon. The Chinese built the Great Wall. (And incidentally, grammar isn’t the issue. “Its hairline breathed in desks” has perfect grammar, as does your sentence. The question is one of idiom rather than grammar.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The use of historic with landmarks, buildings, and districts is common. I’m confused by this when the entity is not a site where something historically important occurred, but is rather just old. Examples: historic Grand Canyon village, historic landmark status, National Register of Historic Places.
A. A dictionary is a great place to check a word meaning. According to Merriam-Webster, the word historic does sometimes mean “just old” (“dating from or preserved from a past time or culture <historic buildings> <historic artifacts>”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am having a disagreement over the placement of a word in a sentence: “The estimated cost is 1% higher than the original estimated cost.” I think the word original is acting as an adverb and therefore should be replaced with the word originally, whereas a colleague suggests that original ought to act as an adjective describing cost. What’s your opinion?
A. If you use original, it’s an adjective modifying cost; if you use originally, it’s an adverb modifying estimated. They are both good usages, and the two wordings mean almost exactly the same thing.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I often have to edit sentences with dangling modifiers—for example, “As a valued supporter, I am pleased to invite you . . .” My go-to improvement is to add you into the sentence: “As you are a valued supporter, I am pleased to invite you . . .” That is, until today, I got back feedback from a higher-up that said it had to be changed, because “you can’t change the subject of the sentence from you to I.” Now I’m really confused! Is that a legitimate critique? Should I just rework the entire sentence? Thanks!
A. Although the higher-up botched the grammar critique (you didn’t change the subject of the sentence; it was always I), it’s clear that your editing was rejected, so yes, you need to try again. For instance, you could move the offending phrase elsewhere (“I am happy to invite you, a valued supporter, . . .”) or make it declarative (“You are a valued supporter, and I am happy to invite you . . .”). If your higher-up just can’t part with the opening phrase, explain that you would be happy to reword but can’t think of a more efficient way to eliminate the dangling modifier. Using the term “dangling modifier” is often enough to frighten someone who doesn’t know grammar into complying.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it grammatically correct to start a sentence with the word because?
A. Yes, it’s correct. It’s correct in formal prose when because is the beginning of a complete sentence, e.g.,
Because of the wind, it felt colder.
Because I was late, they towed my car.
Sticklers object to the use of because because it sometimes introduces a sentence fragment, and they think that sentence fragments are not allowed in writing. But they are wrong—sentence fragments are found in the very best of classic English prose. Because they work.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is this sentence correct, and if not, why? Because it is seriously injured, the dog may die.
A. The sentence is correct. Strict editors might say that it is not correct because the pronoun it comes before the noun that it refers to (dog), but they would have trouble finding such a rule in any authoritative grammar book. If someone has objected to your sentence, it is probably because they are thinking of the rule that main-clause pronouns can’t refer forward to subordinate clauses yet to come (“It died, because the dog was seriously injured”). It’s fine for subordinate-clause pronouns to refer forward to main-clause antecedents yet to come.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear Chicago, What is your stance on myriad versus a myriad of? Myriad thanks.
Q. I am working with a manuscript in which the faculties of reason and feeling are described as rationality and emotionality. Since emotionality is derived from emotional, it seems to me that it might convey an excessively emotional state rather than feeling. Kindly advise.
A. A quick internet search reveals that emotionality is a term used by psychologists. If the manuscript is in that area, the term could well be accurate and appropriate. It would be wise to query the author before changing anything; with a little more research you might save yourself the embarrassment of querying a basic term.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]