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.]
Q. Is the word but necessary in a not only/but also construction? A colleague says it’s become acceptable to leave off the conjunction, but to do so creates a comma splice. For example: The dictionary not only provides detailed definitions of words, it also has some great pictures.
A. Although comma splices are increasingly accepted in all kinds of writing, in formal English, when you are joining two clauses, you need either an expressed conjunction or a semicolon. You can read about comma splices in the Economist and the Sentence First blog—as well as at our own CMOS Shop Talk.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does Chicago Manual of Style approve of different than? Ugh, frankly.
Q. Which is correct: level or levels? “At the local, national, and international level” or “at the local, national, and international levels”?
A. You must have the plural levels, unless somehow a single level is able to be local, national, and international all at once.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is the correct version: “a framework with which” or “a framework from which”? I’ve always heard the latter, but when I Googled this question, I found examples of both.
A. This is like asking which is correct, “I walked with” or “I walked from.” The idea is to use with or from to say what you want to say. A framework with which I struggled, a framework from which I took my ideas, a framework within which they manipulated the data, a framework at which I laughed. If it’s hard to decide which one you need, phrase it less formally: a framework I struggled with, a framework I took my ideas from, a framework they manipulated the data with, a framework I laughed at. (And don’t worry: it’s perfectly grammatical to end with a preposition!)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.]