Q. I am writing an annual report and the company wants it to be conservative, yet conversational. Mixing third person (the company made a profit) with first person (we made a profit) seems clumsy, but it could be the only way to make the report conservative and largely traditional, while still trying to get reader buy-in. Do you have any style tips on how to mix these different voices without coming across as inconsistent and clumsy?
A. A mixture of first and third person would actually be appropriate in this context. The owners of a company naturally talk and write about it in the third person as well as in the first, because there is a difference between the people who make up the company and the company as an organization: We made a decision and the company lost money. (We personally did not lose money; the company did.) We’re going to a party the company is hosting. (The company is picking up the tab; we get to drink the champagne.) Restricting the report to a single construction might even become monotonous and unnatural. “The company this, the company that” could begin to sound officious, and “we this, we that” might leave readers wondering who “we” are.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I just came across a sentence that said something like “The platypus looks like a cross among a duck, a weasel, and a rabbit.” Among sounds correct if used with talking, distributing, and so on with more than two entities, but cross isn’t the same sense and sounds incorrect because there’s no communication, distribution, or whatever. Is this after all correct, or should it be rewritten as “a combination of”?
A. “A combination of” reads better than “a cross among,” but you could also write “a cross between a duck, a weasel, and a rabbit,” since it’s merely a myth that between must be used for only two items.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Regarding wording on a historic marker, is it appropriate to have the marker read “Probable”
or “Vicinity of”? My view is both phrases are ambiguous and don’t
merit a marker at all.
A. “Vicinity of” is appropriate, because it tells viewers that they are standing
near the location of a historic event without claiming that it happened at that exact spot. It doesn’t
seem fair to disqualify an important event from commemoration just because recorded history failed to include its GPS coordinates.
“Probable” is a bit more dicey. By itself, it’s a little
suspect and not very helpful, but if the marker can explain further, then it too might be the best word to convey the facts.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We have an editor who always uses the adverb “also” in front of verb phrases instead of splitting them. I can’t place the rule, but I’m sure this isn’t correct. For example, this editor uses “also will be” or “also has been” instead of “will also be” and “has also been.” Can you direct me to the correct rule for this usage?
A. Please see CMOS 5.104 and 5.171. It’s usual to put an adverb between a main verb and its auxiliary, as you do. This isn’t a rule per se, however, since clarity or emphasis may dictate a shift in position.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Does the sentence “The historian has several sources at their disposal” make
a proper use of the word their? Can it not be argued that the use of their in this sentence is acceptable to maintain gender neutrality?
A. Although many language writers and linguists accept the use of their as a gender-neutral singular, conservative editors will reword, especially when it’s so easy: Historians
have several sources at their disposal. (Or better: Several sources are available to historians.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a technical writer who is also reviewing documents translated into English. An American consultant
is totally prohibiting the use of second-person you in all technical documents that are intended for engineers. I am not against the use of you. I would only recommend using it sparingly. Any advice?
A. It’s rarely wise to ban a construction entirely. The second person is useful in technical writing,
especially if there are imperatives in which you is implied (do this; don’t do that). The second person is less formal than the third person, but it
allows the writer to avoid the even more formal use of the passive (this should be done; that should not be done). One caveat:
using you “sparingly” might not be a good solution, if it results in a mixture of persons.
Better to commit.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS rules (at 8.22) point to “secretary of state” but “Secretary of State Kerry” or “Secretary Kerry,” so I am using “president” but “President Kirchner.” But shouldn’t I capitalize “the Pinochet Dictatorship”? and what about “the Kirchner Administration” and “the Kirchner Government”? Rather than “generic terms associated with governmental bodies” (8.65), they all form an important part of recent Latin American history, like the Mexican Revolution. In addition, they “follow a name and are used as an accepted part of the name” (8.51).
A. While administration and government are commonly capped in sources that don’t follow CMOS, to my eye “the Pinochet Dictatorship” (capped) looks bizarre. Can you imagine it stamped at the top of letterhead stationery or etched in gold leaf on a door? If so, then go ahead and cap it (even though Chicago wouldn’t).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I teach an English-writing class, where I tell my Japanese students never to mix singular and plural pronouns and verbs (“the
government has released its”; “the couple have had their”).
I am also a Japanese-to-English translator and have turned in quite a few passages like this, albeit with a sense of guilt:
“Company A offers our heartfelt sympathy to the tsunami victims.” What do you
suggest in situations where “the company offer” and “its
heartfelt sympathy” both sound odd?
A. The remedy (aside from the guilt thing) is to rewrite the sentence until it doesn’t sound odd. For
instance, you could write, “We at Company A offer our heartfelt sympathy.” There
is almost always a way to rethink (even the guilt thing).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a photograph that I want to describe. It is a picture of two couples who are business friends. Would I write, “This
is a photograph of the Gould’s and the Johnson’s” or “This
is a photograph of the Goulds and the Johnsons”?
A. Our readers never tire of asking this question. What you need is a simple plural: one cat, two cats; one Gould, two Goulds.
This is a photograph of the cats. This is a photograph of the Goulds.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Chicago recommends using the present tense when discussing the actions of characters in literature. But I often face questions about verb tense when discussing the actions of authors themselves, particularly in academic writing. Is it correct to say, “Blomley (2004) argues that property claims can be used toward ends that are both oppressive and emancipatory,” or should I instead render the verb in the past tense? Would the answer change if Blomley had written his book in, say, 1867?
A. Regardless of how long ago the author wrote, the “historic present” is commonly used in just this type of context. If you want to emphasize the past, however—perhaps to contrast it with the present—the past tense works well. Absolute consistency needn’t be a goal in a long manuscript, but don’t mix tenses near each other. Please see CMOS 5.129.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]