Q. If a sentence contains a compound subject in which one of the subjects is dead while the other is alive, is the verb written
in the present or past tense?
A. It depends. If the action clearly takes place in the present, use the present (Aristotle and Susie Jones are examples in
this answer); if it clearly took place in the past, use the past (Abe Lincoln and Susie Jones were both born in Kentucky).
If the “historic present” is more appropriate, that’s another
choice (Aristotle and Susie Jones both write about logic). If you meet with difficulties (Both Lincoln and Jones are/were
tall?), recast the sentence to minimize the problem (Like Lincoln, Jones is tall).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was told this was passive voice and therefore “avoidant”: “If
your suspension from this section was not lifted on time, then that was a mistake and I’m sorry that
happened.” Is this so?
A. “Was not lifted” is indeed passive, and it is “avoidant”
in this sentence because it allows the writer to avoid identifying who failed to lift the suspension on time. This use of the passive deserves its bad reputation, but in good writing a mix of
active and passive is essential for variation and eloquence, as you will find in any classic of English literature. (Strunk
and White use the passive throughout The Elements of Style after famously recommending against it.) The idea that the passive must be avoided is a superstition that language professionals
long ago abandoned, although the prohibition remains popular.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a grammar teacher currently teaching paired/correlative conjunctions. According to AzarGrammar, with “neither . . . nor,” “either
. . . or,” and “not only . . .
but also,” the subject closest to the verb decides the singularity or plurality of the verb. So, following
that rule, it would be “neither my brother nor my sister is happy.” However, with
“I” being the first person singular, I’m confused. Is it,
“neither my brother nor I am happy” or “neither my brother
nor I is happy”?
A. Authorities seem to agree that the only way to handle such quandaries is to avoid them, because you can’t
win. Either way, you look silly. You must rewrite as “My brother and I are both unhappy”
or in some other way.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Convoluted structure aside, is there anything grammatically wrong with the following sentence from a state unemployment application?
My boss thinks “which” is incorrect and should be replaced with “that”;
I think both are incorrect. Please help! “Did you work full-time or part-time for an employer or in
self-employment or return to full-time work during the week ending last Saturday, which you have not already reported?”
A. The sentence is ungrammatical, because “which” has no antecedent. Changing it
to “that” does not help. Adding a noun somewhere (such as “hours”)
and moving things around will fix the grammar. “During the week ending last Saturday, did you work any
hours (full-time or part-time, for an employer or in self-employment) that you have not already reported, or did you return
to full-time work?” Either way, “that” is preferred, but
“which” is not incorrect.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. An article I wrote recently was copyedited, and wherever I had begun a sentence with “Due to”
the editor changed it to “Owing to” or “Because of.”
What’s the difference?
A. Your copyeditor was following a rule that is fast losing ground to common usage. Strictly speaking, “due”
is an adjective and is properly used as such: “Her headache was due to a paralyzing fear of hearing
the same song twice.” If you wrote “Due to her fear, she threw the radio out the
window,” the adjective phrase would be left dangling, without anything to modify. “Owing
to” and “because of” act as prepositions, so in writing
“Because of her fear” you create a prepositional phrase that can modify the verb
“threw.” By the way, The Chicago Manual of Style includes a chapter on grammar. For a discussion of “due to”—and
many other grammatical issues—see chapter 5.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS, What is your opinion of the contraction “there’s” for “there
has”? A sample sentence is “There’s been an explosion of
scientific knowledge.” One on-line source says “there’s”
has two meanings, “there is” and “there has.”
If contractions were appropriate in a document, would you use “there’s”
in both ways in the same document? Same paragraph? And by the way, when did the second usage creep in? Thanks.
A. (1) Seems fine to me. (2) Sure. (3) Can’t think why not. (4) I don’t know, but
the online concordance to Shakespeare shows 401 occurrences, so it must have crept in some time ago. (5) You’re
most welcome.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do you have the definitive word on the following: “A is 29% greater than B” (as, for example, when A costs $1.29 and B costs $1.00)? I’m bothered by the use of a percentage less than 100, immediately followed by the “greater than” phrase, which I think is self-contradictory. In this specific case, I think A is actually 129% greater than B. If A cost less than B, it would be some percentage less than 100; if it costs more, then it must be some percentage greater than 100. Any comments?
A. Yes. I’m afraid that the definitive word (from a University of Chicago mathematician) is: you are wrong. Sorry! But evidently the phrase “greater than” is not the same as “of” (which means “times,” mathematically speaking). So in this case “A is 129% of B” is the same as “A is 29% greater than B.” (If B is $1.00, then A is $1.29.) “A is 129% greater than B” would mean that to find A, you would have to add B + 129% of B. (If B is $1.00, then A is $2.29.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Help us out if you please. We are debating whether the following incomplete sentence (it’s used in
a table) takes singular or plural verbs. “A tool applied to data that identifies consumer goods, defines
their characteristics, and describes their method choice behaviors.”
A. The problem here is compounded because the noun “data” can be either singular
or plural. If you use singular verbs, the verbs can refer to either “tool” or
“data” (resulting in some ambiguity); if you use the plural, they must go with
“data.” I’m not sure which of the two meanings you intend.
If you want to modify “tool,” you might reword slightly: “A
tool that, when applied to data, identifies consumer goods, . . .”
If you want to modify “data,” use the plural to avoid the ambiguity.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am continually encountering extremely long lists ending with “as well as X”
in this construction: “I talked about A, B, C, D, E, and F as well as X.” In 95
percent of these cases, X is not comparative, contrastive, or emphatic but merely a last-minute tack-on to the list. (Otherwise,
I would probably use a dash or comma.) Given these circumstances, should a comma always precede “as
well as”? I work at a highly political nonprofit where I am not always allowed to rephrase even minor
things (big egos). Sometimes correct revisions are vetoed, and incorrect punctuation, improper word usage or citation formatting,
grammatical mistakes, and misspellings are published rather than risk offending the original author.
A. A comma is optional in that position. The construction “E, F, as well as X,”
however, should be changed, either by inserting “and” before F or by changing “as well as” to “and.”
(I hope your readers don’t base their donations on the quality of your publications.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am the copy editor for a nonprofit organization, and we recently hired a new publications director. One of his style preferences
drives some of us crazy, and I was hoping you might help, as we are supposed to be following The Chicago Manual of Style. Anyway, I think this might be more of a personal choice instead of a style decision: the problem is that he insists on leaving
in or adding unnecessary “thats,” even if the other editors feel they bog down
the sentences. Example: I had a sentence that read, “It is important for mental health workers to understand
the vital role companion animals play in their clients’ lives.” Per his choice,
it now reads, “It is important for mental health workers to understand the vital role that companion
animals play in their clients’ lives.” I know it’s not incorrect
to add the “thats,” but I believe they make the text sound sloppy. What do you
think?
A. You’re right; it is a personal choice, and among the editors here you probably wouldn’t
get a consensus in many cases. I myself find the opposite practice annoying, when that is omitted in sentences like “The agents reported substantial delays took place at the station.”
The reader stumbles, taking delays as the object of reported rather than as the subject of another clause. (Newspaper editors are the least tolerant of the optional that —I challenge you to find one in the Chicago Tribune.) I always add a that when such ambiguity exists, and I tend to like the sound of it in any case.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]