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.]
Q. Can you please help settle a disagreement? In the following sentence, should “instead of” be replaced with “rather than”? Overpayments occurred because facility purchased care staff processed payments using the local VA Fee schedule instead of the technical component of RBRVS.
A. Let me get this straight: in that nearly unreadable sentence (“because facility purchased care staff processed payments”?), the disagreement centers on whether to use “instead of” or “rather than”? (Oh, wait—I see from your email address that this is a government office.) Replace the phrase if you are certain that (1) there is a significant difference in meaning, and (2) the current wording does not express the meaning intended. If you cannot reach agreement on these points, you might have to fund a study.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My friend Ed says that there is a problem with the sentence “An error occurred while processing your request.” More specifically, he says that it sounds like the error is processing the request. Do you see what he is talking about? Is this a legitimate criticism? The sentence in question is a common message from computer systems, and when we asked around, no one could see a problem with it. I wondered if there might be some underlying grammatical exception that explained why the message seemed so clear (despite the error Ed perceived). But I guess it is just one of those things that people understand unambiguously because of its context.
A. Ed is right about there being a grammar problem, because there is no word in the sentence that tells who is processing, and the best candidate is error. Consider this: if you read “A bird sang while flying by your window,” you understand it to mean “A bird sang while [it, the bird, was] flying by your window.” The grammar is the same in “An error occurred while [it, the error, was] processing your request.” It’s true that people generally understand this construction from its context without perceiving it as an error. The danger is when language like this is used to dodge responsibility for an action. It’s more honest to clean up the grammar and name the actor: “An error occurred while we were processing your request.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Under what circumstances should “per annum” be used preferentially to “per year”? Do they have different meanings or are they interchangeable?
A. They have the same meaning, but “per annum” is fancier.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it acceptable for the subject of a sentence to use “(s)” to indicate a possibility of plurality? If so, should the verb that follows be singular or plural? The attached form(s) indicates the required accounts or The attached form(s) indicate the required accounts?
A. The “(s)” construction works only when the noun in question is not the subject of a sentence. Instead, you can use the plural alone, which we usually understand to include the possibility of a singular meaning: The attached forms indicate the required accounts. Or, if you don’t think that’s clear enough, be more explicit: One or more attached forms indicate the required accounts. Or you can rewrite to cast the “(s)” word as something other than the subject of the sentence: Required accounts are indicated by the attached form(s).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a business document that explains how to use an advertising report. The word geographies is used as a noun and as a synonym for regions. For example, “Identify geographies that yield better results.” The dictionary doesn’t help. In general, how can an editor determine if a jargon word is a good candidate for a company style guide, or if the word is simply silly and should be replaced?
A. Much of the time, a nonspecialist editor should not decide. Instead, query. You can ask, “OK to replace geographies with regions, or is geographies the current industry lingo?” (It’s best to resist phrases like “simply silly.”)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Where in the manual will I find guidance to answer the question whether the adverb structurally in the phrase “structurally modify or upgrade” qualifies only the verb modify or both the verbs modify and upgrade? I have looked at chapter 5 but don’t perceive the guidance I need.
A. Alas—the great and powerful manual cannot tell you what this writer was thinking. The only way to know for sure is to ask him or her. If you don’t have access to the writer, then you will have to settle for ambiguity. If you need to know the exact meaning because you’re involved in a lawsuit whose outcome depends on the technical meaning of this phrase, you’re at the mercy of the judge. If you are the judge, well, good luck.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]