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.]
Q. When somebody (especially a superior who wants to get work done through you) means, “You must/should/have to do this,” is it correct for her to say, “You need to do this”? You need to answer that; otherwise I am not likely to get sleep. Thanks!
A. It’s certainly correct grammatically. CMOS is silent on whether it’s gracious or effective.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. “Contains one each of the following cigars: [list of cigars]” or “contains one of each of the following cigars: [list of cigars]”? We’re having a battle in my office. What do you think?
Q. Dear Sir or Madam, I am taking a course on Hispanic linguistics. As part of a project that has been assigned by my professor, I just learned that there is an institution that regulates the usage of the English language (in the United States? Great Britain?). I would like to read more about it. It is my impression that The Chicago Manual of Style has part of the job of regulator of the English language. Is this true?
A. If only! But no—there is no institution that can regulate language in the United States or Great Britain, although there are organizations that sometimes pretend to. In both countries people are free to speak and write as they wish. The Chicago Manual of Style is a guide for writers who want to write in standard English and use a standard citation format. You can start your research by reading about language regulators at Wikipedia.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is Chicago’s view on “all of the sudden”?
A. CMOS is silent on the issue, but “all of the sudden” is not idiomatic and normally would be edited to “all of a sudden.” You can compare the frequency and longevity of these two expressions in published books at Ngram Viewer. You aren’t the only one to have noticed the new popularity of “all of the sudden,” by the way. You can read one discussion of the phenomenon here.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi CMOS—I have a question about sentences using either/neither. For example, “They neither discussed the case nor the suspect.” This sounds fine and a reader will understand what is meant. But almost always, people tend to apply strict grammar and transpose the verb: “They discussed neither the case nor the suspect.” Is this really necessary? I mean, I don’t see any room for confusion in the original sentence. Thanks!
A. I agree that it’s a fine point and that the first sentence can pass the reading test. However, in sentences more complex than yours, the incorrect placement of neither can cause ambiguity:
The police neither caught the suspect after he robbed the bank nor the little old lady bystander packing a stun gun.
Does that mean that neither the police nor the old lady caught the suspect, or that the police caught neither the suspect nor the old lady? For clarity, we recommend using proper parallel structure, especially in formal writing.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Sentence: Only 1 in 66 households [has/have] received this letter. Is it has or have? I presume that because 1 in 66 is the lowest common denominator of a larger group it should be have.
A. If literally only one household received the letter, using the singular has would be the intuitive (and correct) choice. But normally this construction expresses a ratio with a plural numerator, as you suggest, so that “1 in 66” might actually stand for, e.g., “200 out of 13,200.” Perversely, the singular verb is still recommended by many, perhaps because the word one is the subject regardless of its implied meaning in such expressions.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I recommended to an author that he should use the word similar (no ly) when it comes before the word to (similar to, rather than similarly to), and should use the word similarly (with an ly) when followed by a comma. I cannot find a rule to cite. Am I correct? Thanks for your help.
Example 1: Similar to the credit crisis in the 1980s . . .
Example 2: Similarly, the recent financial crisis . . .
A. While your examples are correct, oversimplifications like this can go terribly wrong when applied universally or mechanically. Actual usage depends on syntax and context. Similar may be followed by a comma, and similarly to may be perfectly grammatical. For example:
The train runs clockwise, similarly to a clock.
Similar, but not the same, are trains that run counterclockwise.
In fact, no rule is needed, because the uses of the adjective similar and the adverb similarly are dictated by their definitions and parts of speech. When editing, if you need to change one and you feel that an explanation is needed, you can simply say “Adverb needed here” or “Syntax requires adjective.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Each of Texas’s 254 counties has a county judge, and the Honorable Sam Biscoe is the county judge of Travis County. The question we need your help with is whether Chicago approves of referring to him in formal writing as “Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe.” One editor objects to “county” being forced to serve double duty, but “Travis County County Judge Sam Biscoe” doesn’t seem like a good solution. Thank you for your sage guidance!
A. One county is probably enough to be understood in most contexts: Travis county judge Sam Biscoe. Add the second county when it’s important to be precise about the title: Travis County county judge Sam Biscoe. (See CMOS 8.21 on the lowercasing of job titles in apposition.) Of course, this could get out of hand if you aren’t careful: if there were a person in charge of appointing the county judges, that person could be called the Travis County county judge judge. And if that person happened to be named Travis Judge, he might be referred to as Travis County county judge judge Travis Judge.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]