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.]
Q. I have always changed cf. to see since CMOS states that it means “to confer; compare.” Of course, I query whether the author really does mean “compare,” but the majority of the time they mean to say “see.” Someone tells me that their dictionary says it is often used to mean “see also.” This doesn’t seem right to me—it’s an abbreviation for a Latin term; how can a dictionary change an actual meaning?
A. Dictionaries are not in the business of changing meanings: rather, lexicographers collect evidence on how people use words, and when a word is used pervasively and persistently to mean something, they list that meaning in the dictionary. After all, if you don’t know the meaning of a word, what good is it if the dictionary lists only the original, perhaps outdated meanings? You need to know what it means now.
That a meaning is listed in a dictionary doesn’t mean that the editors of the dictionary have put some stamp of approval or acceptance on it. Rather, they are stating a fact: this is one meaning of this word, a meaning documented by research and observation. Readers must decide whether that use is appropriate.
For a long time now, scholars have been using cf. to mean see also, and if the dictionary says that this is what readers now understand by it, I suppose many editors must be letting it stand.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In my journalism days, I was taught that the following type of sentence is a non sequitur. I see it more and more these days. What do you think? “A software developer with fifteen years of experience, Sally’s passion is creating quality products.”
A. In my apprentice days, I was taught that such a sentence contains a “dangler.” Unless Sally has a passion for an experienced software developer who is creating quality products, it would be better to eliminate the dangler and clarify.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am now happily retired from a career in estate planning. Over the years, both clients and other practitioners have consistently used the word gift as a verb, as in “I want to gift my house to my daughter.” This seems awfully stilted. Is there something wrong with the word give?
Q. A number of my friends and colleagues now use invite as a noun, as in “send him an invite.” I think it’s pretty lazy usage when the perfectly good word invitation is available. Am I just an old crank who doesn’t like change?
A. In both cases, the usages you frown on have been around for centuries, according to Merriam-Webster. Language fluctuates; words come in and out of favor; regionalisms spread quickly. When a wording strikes you as strange or trendy, take a moment to investigate its credentials; even if you choose not to adopt the usage yourself, maybe it will help you be more accepting when others use it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Our editing department is stumped! Would you say “There are an infinite amount of critical values” or “There is an infinite amount of critical values”?
A. Neither. The word amount is normally used only with singular noncount nouns. You have a number or quantity of Xs, but an amount of X (singular): a large amount of cash, a small amount of pride, a piddling amount of rain, but an infinite number of critical values.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Recently a fellow editor and I had a discussion on the use of “whether or not” and when the “or not” is needed. I have always followed what’s stated in CMOS 5.250: “The ‘or not’ is necessary only when you mean to convey the idea ‘regardless of whether.’ ” Is the “or not” necessary in a construction like this, even if there are two alternatives? “You will need to plan, whether or not you have an existing design or you are starting from scratch.”
A. Sometimes “or not” is unnecessary, but if it does no harm and the writer likes it, it’s not wrong to leave it there: Let me know whether or not you are coming or Let me know whether you are coming. If the “or not” turns the sentence into a confusing mess, however, as it does in your sentence, and if deleting it will render the sentence crystal clear, then delete it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My boss likes to dictate letters using what I refer to as declarative or emphatic speech: “She did go to the store and she did buy that hat. I did tell her that it was a lovely hat.” I have never seen text typed in this manner and generally edit it to “She went to the store and bought that hat. I told her that it was a lovely hat.” Which is correct?
A. There’s nothing incorrect about your boss’s construction, but even perfect grammar can be distracting and annoying. I’ve noticed this usage particularly in flight-attendant speech. (“We do expect to be landing shortly.” “We do ask you to return your seat to its upright position.”) You should feel confident editing out the extraneous emphasis.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When did calendar come into common US use as a verb? I always find it difficult to obey when asked to calendar an upcoming meeting, because I hear calender (comes from cylinder), the act of moving paper between two rollers to smooth its surface.
A. It’s possible you aren’t the only person who, when faced with an upcoming meeting, imagines smashing the agenda to bits, but I’m guessing that among US workers calendar is far more familiar than calender. Merriam-Webster tells us that calendar has been a transitive verb since the fifteenth century—plenty of time for it to catch on in the States. A superficial search of the verb forms calendared and calendaring at Google Books’ Ngram Viewer shows their usage in American English beginning in the early nineteenth century.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’ve been coming across this construction using the verb help: helping our patients be home for the holidays; knowing that we have helped so many people be home for the holidays. I recognize the usage; it’s common in my region. But I’ve been recommending to be home as the grammatically unimpeachable (and to my ear better) choice. I haven’t found a discussion of the matter anywhere. I would appreciate a recommendation.
A. The omission of to in constructions with help is also unimpeachable. In fact, often the addition of to would impart an unreasonably stilted or formal tone: Let me help you to reach that. Please take a look at CMOS 5.106.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]