Q. Will there ever be a word processing program designed to use only The Chicago Manual of Style?
A. If you could put all the monkeys in the world on all the computers in the world, with all the tech consultants in the world,
maybe, at some point in infinity, there would be such a program.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I say that “between 2000 and 2010” means Jan. 1, 2001, through Dec. 31, 2009.
Am I (a) correct or (b) crazy?
A. You aren’t correct or crazy, but you are maybe a little more literal-minded than necessary. Although
you could argue that your interpretation is technically correct, it’s often not what people mean when
they say or write “between.” Look at it this way: if your cat disappeared sometime
between Monday and Wednesday, would you deduce that it had to have been on Tuesday?
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m reviewing a scientific manuscript in which the copyeditor has changed every instance of “using”
to “by using”—for instance, “describe
a vector by using Cartesian coordinates.” I can find no usage manual that comments on “using”
versus “by using,” and other people’s opinions seem to be
split. Does “using” require a “by”?
A. If “using” can be misread as “that/who is using,”
then it’s a good idea to add “by”:
Describe a child using a pen.
Describe a child who is using a pen.
Describe a child by using a pen.
If the copyeditor doesn’t actually know whether a vector is able to “use”
Cartesian coordinates, she might be hedging her bets by forcing you to approve her interpretation. If you think the copy is
slightly clearer with the addition of “by,” consider keeping it. If it changes
the meaning to something that isn’t correct, then reword your sentence so it’s
clearer.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please distinguish between per and as per.
A. They are the same. As per used to be considered a barbarism, and editors learned to change it to per (or reword it into English). CMOS 5.250 still warns against as per: “This phrase, though common in the commercial world, has long been considered nonstandard. Instead of as per your request, write as you requested or (less good) per your request. The recent innovation as per usual for as usual is an illiteracy.” You will find, however, that popular usage is winning the day, and that as per is treated as standard English by authoritative sources such as Merriam-Webster and the OED.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When should the written version of a number not be followed by that number in parentheses?
A. Hmm. In a love note? “Remitted herein please find three (3) little words . . .”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a nonfiction text in which I refer to the title of a novel written by a character in a novel. The fictitious
title happens to be the same as the actual novel’s title. Throughout my nonfiction text I have been
italicizing actual book titles. What do I do with the fictitious title? Do I put it in quotes or do I italicize it? Many thanks!
A. If the fictitious novel has been fictitiously published (that is, it is not a fictitious manuscript awaiting fictitious publication),
Chicago style calls for italics. However, if the confusion of having identical actual and fictitious titles results in a lot
of awkward explaining and signposting, you might consider quotation marks for the fake title.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When writing a document (or preparing a PowerPoint presentation), should “e.g.”
be spelled out as “for example,” or is leaving it as an abbreviation OK?
A. Chicago style bans abbreviations like “e.g.” from the text proper, reserving
them for parentheticals and notes, but PowerPoint is like texting or billboard advertising—I wouldn’t
try to force it into Chicago style.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I write for an engineering training company. My boss returned from a standards meeting where the members decided that conditional
sentences beginning with “when” (e.g., “When the diameter
symbol is placed next to a dimension . . .”) are incorrect
and should be changed to “where” throughout the standard and our textbooks. I
contend that examples like these refer to “if or when” conditions, not place.
It’s tantamount to saying, “Where you are in Paris, you must obey the rules.”
Is there a rule that covers the correct usage of “where” versus “when”?
A. “When” and “where” have overlapping
meanings; both can mean “in the situation of” or “in the
event that” and are thus interchangeable in many contexts. (You can learn this in a dictionary.) Your
engineers might need to follow rigid rules when they create building specs, but in writing, they would benefit from flexibility.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I keep encountering authors who insist on using the word “Yay!” It isn’t
in the dictionary. What is the best substitute word, besides “Yes!”?
A. If your authors are using the word inappropriately (“We were able to show a 28.4% reduction in the
incidence of inherited metabolic disorders—yay!”), then query it by all means.
But to banish a word from all contexts simply because it isn’t in a dictionary is just sticklerism.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was recently confronted with the question a versus an. We used a; he insisted it should be an. In the 15th edition, in section 15.9, it shows that “when an abbreviation follows an indefinite article, the choice of a or an is determined by the way the abbreviation would be read aloud.” In the examples used, it shows “an NBA coach.” Why would you not use a there? “An National Basketball Association coach” doesn’t seem correct to me.
A. “NBA” is not pronounced “National Basketball Association” but “en-bee-ay.” Thus, “an NBA coach.” (See CMOS 10.9.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]