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.]
Q. Colleagues have asserted that the definite article is never used with a comparative and that the use of a definite article requires the superlative. Consequently, even in comparing two items, they’d use the superlative with the definite article: “That is the biggest house.” “That is a better car.” I’ve asserted that, in comparing only two items, one uses the comparative: “That is the bigger house.” “That is the better car.” Who is right?
A. There are two statements at issue: (1) that the definite article is never used with a comparative, which is wrong; (2) that when comparing only two items one uses the comparative, which is right—but not exclusively so. It’s idiomatic to use the superlative when comparing only two items. Sometimes forcing the comparative just makes you sound pedantic. You can read Grammar Girl on the subject here.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS Q&A Guru, we are having a heck of a time ferreting out the correct verb tense to use in the second half of a sentence. There are copyeditors lobbying for each of the following conjugations:
1. At the time of distribution of this circular, this item is not yet approved.
2. At the time of distribution of this circular, this item was not yet approved.
3. At the time of distribution of this circular, this item has not yet been approved.
4. At the time of distribution of this circular, this item had not yet been approved.
Can you definitively state which is most correct and why? Please help us put this question to rest. Thank you!
A. Your question is like asking “Which is the most correct: her eyes are blue, or her eyes are green?” The sentences are all grammatically correct. The idea is to use the one that describes the situation accurately. Sentences 1 and 3 are equally correct if the time of distribution is ongoing. Both imply that the item still has a chance of being approved, without stating whether approval is likely. Sentences 2 and 4 are equally correct if the time of distribution was in the past. Both imply that the item was ultimately approved, although it’s merely an implication.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the past tense for text? I use text as in “I text her yesterday, and she text me back.” I read/hear people say texted: “I texted her yesterday, and she texted me back.” Which is more correct?
A. Texted is correct. Adding ed is the standard way to make a verb past tense, so with a new verb like text, that’s the default. With increased usage, a nonstandard past tense could eventually establish itself, but until then, use the standard verb form.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I received the following comment and would appreciate any feedback on its accuracy. “The word officially is an adverb. In spoken English it often precedes a verb. However, in formal, written English, the adverb should always follow the verb. Hence officially follows the verb announced.”
A. Well, that’s just nonsense! When you receive a comment like that, you should politely ask for the source of the rule. I can promise you, there is no authoritative source for this rule. Although adverb placement can certainly affect meaning and emphasis, and there are conventions and idioms that apply, they cannot be reduced to a rule as simple as the one you cite. (Tip: The word always in an alleged grammar rule is a sure sign that it’s bogus.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]