Q. I cannot find a reference to this in my Manual: because versus since. I have been tutored that because is used for instances of cause/effect and that since is for time. However, one of my authors is a scholar who contends that “since denotes a state of being based on a relationship. . . . Because implies causality between one aspect of that relationship and the other.” Can you explain this to me
more clearly or refute it altogether?
A. All you need is a dictionary—you and your author seem to be following variations on an old superstition.
CMOS covers this in the “Word Usage” section under the word since: “This word may relate either to time {since last winter} or to causation {since I’m
a golfer, I know what ‘double bogey’ means}. Some writers erroneously believe
that the word relates exclusively to time. But the causal since was a part of the English language before Chaucer wrote in the fourteenth century, and it is useful as a slightly milder
way of expressing causation than because. But where there is any possibility of confusion with the temporal sense, use because.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work for an insurance company, and one of our beloved underwriters is disputing an exclusion in our policy that specifies
“while piloting or serving as a crewmember in a plane.” She wants it to read,
“while piloting or serving as a crewmember on a plane.” I can think of ways to
defend both, but I’d love to know which is correct.
A. In English it’s rare that there is only one correct way to say something, but if you think that “on
a plane” could technically mean sitting on top of the plane, that would be a pretty exclusive exclusion.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are having a bit of a debate down here—in a manuscript, one of our authors refers to a person who keeps a journal as a “journaler.” The author prefers “journaler” to “diarist” because she feels that they are two separate things. The copyeditor wants to change “journaler” to “journalist” (the second definition of “journalist” is “a person who keeps a journal”), but I think that would be confusing to a reader. “Journalizer” appears in Merriam-Webster but doesn’t seem right either. Any opinions?
A. Let me guess: this author also uses the verb “to journal.” If this is the kind of book that allows a person to journal, you may as well call the perpetrator a journaler. Alternatives might be “journal keeper,” “writer,” “author,” or “narrator.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When is it correct to use “if” and when is it correct to use “whether?” Thank you.
A. “Whether” should be used to introduce a noun clause: He asked whether his hat was on straight. It is especially helpful to use “whether” (1) when the noun clause begins the sentence: Whether the hat stayed on his head was of tremendous importance to him; and (2) when the use of “if” would result in ambiguity. “He asked me to tell him if his bald spot was showing” is often taken to mean that I should tell him whether it’s showing or not, whereas it literally means that if I can’t see his scalp, I can keep quiet. Because the popular meaning is different from the literal meaning, there is ambiguity. “He asked me to tell him whether his bald spot was showing” clearly means that I should tell him whether it’s showing or not. So use “whether” to introduce an alternative; avoid substituting “if” for “whether” unless perhaps you want to strike an informal tone, as in true-to-life dialogue.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Recently I was trying to determine (once again) whether subjects should be considered singular or plural when they are of the following form: rock(s). Personally, I think the simplest approach would be to treat it as any other parenthetical note within a sentence: it’s a note to the reader, but it should not affect the grammar of the sentence. Therefore, “rock(s)” would be treated as singular, not plural, and certainly not singular and plural. I looked through CMOS but could not find a solution. I guess my actual question is, is there a flaw in my reasoning, and if not, could Chicago recommend it?
A. The trick (used frequently in CMOS) is to use that construction only when it is not the subject of the sentence. Its use as the subject upsets us, and we try to avoid thinking about it. We prefer that you make up whatever rule you like. We are going to take an aspirin and lie down.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which is correct? “Most important, you enable your students to pursue their passions”
or “Most importantly, you enable your students to pursue their passions.”
A. Although the second version is considered incorrect by many sticklers, and the first one sounds wrong to people who don’t
know better, they are both correct.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If words in parentheses would turn a singular subject into a plural subject, should the verb (outside the parentheses) be
plural? I’m wondering specifically whether “applies” should
be “apply” in this sentence: A case such as this illustrates a broader category
in which justice (and, therefore, injustice) no longer applies.
A. Your sentence is correct as written. Parenthetical content should not leach into the syntax of the containing sentence. If
the information is so important that you feel it shouldn’t be ignored, take it out of parentheses: A
case such as this illustrates a broader category in which justice and injustice no longer apply.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m trying very hard to understand how through and to are different, as in “Monday to Friday” or “Monday through Friday.” Do they mean the same thing? To complicate matters, if an en dash is substituted (as in “Monday–Friday”), could the meaning be either through or to? I’m editing a paper that contains hundreds of date and number ranges. Sometimes the writer spells out to or through, but most of the time, he uses an en dash. I’ve read 6.78 a gazillion times and need further clarification. Thanks!
A. First of all, this is a clear case of an inclusive range— you are not dealing with scores or directions—so don’t worry about that different use of to discussed toward the end of CMOS 6.78. In this construction, to and through mean the same thing. (When after a gazillion attempts, you’re still stymied by something like this, sometimes it helps to step away from the style book and think a second about what you know. If a website said the library was open Monday through Friday, and if a newspaper ad said it was open Monday to Friday, and if the sign on the door said “Open Monday–Friday,” would you wonder whether they meant different things?) They need not, however, all be written the same way, except in places where it would look odd otherwise, such as in a single sentence, or in a list or table.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I wonder how appropriate it is to use the word one to refer to an undefined person (probably the reader) in a manuscript that I prepare for a scientific journal. For example:
It could be argued that one should consider this.
A. One is a little formal when used this way, but many scholars do use it. Alternatives are the less formal (and sometimes scorned)
we and the even more informal you.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m in a quandary regarding gender pronouns. In an economics paper (on first-price auctions) that I
am editing, the author has defined the actors in his proposition like this: “The female and male pronouns
are used for weak and strong bidders, respectively.” Is there any exception where gender-biased language
is allowed for ease of expression? What do you recommend?
A. You could ask the author whether this usage is conventional in his topic area, but regardless, you should point out that
the implication would offend some readers. Suggest that he rethink his shorthand.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]