Q. A colleague and I have a conflict. I don’t like the use of and also in sentences like the following: “We walked and also ran the two blocks to the post office.” I would change the sentence to “We both walked and ran the two blocks to the post office” or “We not only walked but also ran the two blocks to the post office.” What’s your take on the use of and with also, two words close in meaning? My colleague says one is a conjunction and the other an adverb, so the combination is fine.
A. And also is conventional and grammatical. It can be used clumsily (as in the sentence you quote), and sometimes the also is superfluous, but there’s no need to avoid it when it’s used well. Here is an instance of its use in CMOS (at 15.26):
As Edward Tufte points out, “A graphical element may carry data information and also perform a design function usually left to non-data-ink.”
In that sentence, also carries some weight: rather than meaning simply and, it has an added connotation of “contrary to expectations.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I often find myself with questions about verb tense in indirect speech. When the main verb is in the past tense (e.g., said, argued), should subordinate verbs also be shifted into the past? For example, in the sentence “Military supporters claimed that the purpose of a nation’s standing army is to fight wars, not keep the peace,” I am inclined to change is to was. A cursory web search reveals that “backshifting” is a hotly debated question; does Chicago have a position on it?
A. We don’t have a position on it, because writers must be free to use the tense that their meaning requires. You could make a rule that the past must always be used, but that would result in universal ambiguity: “They pointed out that as humans we were fallible” leaves open to question whether we still are. The present tense in “They pointed out that as humans we are fallible” more clearly implies that humans are still fallible today. To restrict writers with an arbitrary rule in this case is not in the interest of clarity.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the August Q&A, you did not correct the correspondent’s misuse of the word entitled (“a poster authored with Smith entitled ‘Measuring . . .’”). Were you just being kind, or did you not want to distract from the question being asked?
A. You might prefer the more economical word title in your own writing, but entitle is widely used, and many writers think it makes a better verb. The belief that entitle must not be used in place of title is one of many spurious “zombie rules” clung to by writers and editors and teachers. If you Google “grammar superstitions” or “grammar zombie rules,” you might be surprised at how many of your own habits are out of date!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is the following correct? “In one of my more popular poems . . .” Is there a hard-and-fast rule regarding most versus more?
A. Absolutely. In contexts like these, more is an unspecified but nonetheless greater quantity than less, as well as a possibly exact but unexpressed quantity less than most. Of course, if you have a more popular poem, you probably also have a less popular one, so perhaps it’s best not to say.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My editor has added instances of the word that, and I thought it was best to avoid the word that unless it was integral to the sentence. In other words, if the sentence works without it, then leave it out. Am I right or not?
A. CMOS prefers to retain that, for clarity; please see section 6.27. Although there are times it can be safely omitted (QED), sometimes that is needed to keep the reader from stumbling: “He gently suggested the plan to escape by means of hang gliders was harebrained.” Unless you are certain how to judge each case, it might be best to trust your editor.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. On our organization website we publish announcements of researcher presentations, which I like to format this way: He presented a poster authored with Smith, “Measuring the Multidisciplinary Impact of Scientific Data.” My boss always insists on changing this to the following: He presented a poster authored with Smith on “Measuring the Multidisciplinary Impact of Scientific Data.” The on seems awkward. I would concede as equivalent either “a poster authored with Smith entitled ‘Measuring . . . ,’” or “a poster authored with Smith on measuring . . .” (wherein the topic is lowercased and not set off in quotation marks). However, I think the first example is fine and would prefer it since it’s more succinct. Do you agree with my preferences and that his version is awkward—and if so, can you help me make a case for my approach?
A. Certainly. You can cite the examples at CMOS 8.174: “The title of a work should not be used to stand for the subject of a work.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. As editors of a Buddhist magazine, we made the decision some time ago not to split verb phrases, since we want a more formal, literary style. Thus, we write: “In order to gain wisdom, one must carry out the Buddhist practice consistently.” Some readers have complained, saying our writing style is too stodgy. They would prefer, “In order to gain wisdom, one must consistently carry out the Buddhist practice.” I’ve noticed that many newspapers and magazines still avoid splitting verb phrases. Does CMOS have a position on this issue?
A. CMOS does: please see paragraphs 5.104 and 5.171. The idea that verb phrases cannot be split in this way is quite mistaken, and there is no reason to arbitrarily avoid it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am from Pittsburgh and was informed that instead of “The clothes need to be washed,” I am saying, “The clothes need washed.” Is “The clothes need washed” an incorrect or incomplete sentence?
A. Appearance in published books is one way to gauge the relative formality of an expression. If you type “need washed, need washing, need to be washed” into Google’s Ngram Viewer, which surveys millions of books published over the last two hundred years, you’ll see that “need washed” didn’t gain in currency until about twenty years ago, and that the other expressions are much more strongly favored, with “need to be washed” used twice as much as “need washing.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a recent New York Times online article, I noticed several instances where that was dropped in cases of indirect address. Here’s one example: “But Dr. McNiff said closing half-empty schools that were in aging buildings provided significant savings.” Should there not be a that after said? Or was it eliminated to avoid the awkward “that . . . that”? It seems to be common practice, but is it correct?
A. Newspaper writers make a habit of dropping an optional that to conserve space, and if the sentence is readable, there’s nothing wrong with omitting it. Sometimes it is needed, however, to keep the reader from stumbling: She maintained the haircut on a strict budget was optional. He allowed children in his swimming pool were a nuisance.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A colleague said to me, “She is based out of Chennai.” I perceived this as “She is not based in Chennai, but somewhere else.” When I questioned this, she said she meant that the person is based in Chennai. Is this standard English?
A. Oddly, yes. It is a standard idiom, if not formal English. It’s often said that navigating prepositions is the trickiest part of learning English; this is a good example. “I work out of my home” does mean “I work at home as a base” (even if that involves traveling). Perversely, it’s the opposite of “I work outside the home,” which means working somewhere else. Being “based out of” is a similar concept, of someone having a home base that they work “out of” or “out from.” Obviously, there is potential for great misunderstanding in the use of this expression. It’s one of many reasons why the use of formal English for professional communications is still a good idea.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]