Q. I am editing online assessment for K–12. Writers keep using “Click OK when you’re
done.” It doesn’t sound grammatically correct, but I can’t
find any rule to the contrary. I’ve been changing it to “when you finish.”
However, writers persist in using “when you’re done.” Is
this grammatically correct?
A. Both are perfectly grammatical; I suspect you are worried that the usage is incorrect. There is a popular superstition, unconfirmed
by dictionaries, that people cannot be “done” (like turkeys in the oven). Many
writers therefore consider “finished” to be more proper.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I recently edited a brochure that explained services that are friendly to both individuals and families. There was some debate
as to whether the services should be described as “individual-/family-friendly”
or as “individual/family-friendly.” Which construction makes more sense?
A. And none of your debaters were willing to admit that it’s really ugly either way? Sometimes when a
choice is difficult, it’s best to start over. The services aren’t going to seem
friendly if the text is scary. How about “services friendly to individuals and families”?
Better yet, push the writer to avoid the overused cliché and think of something fresh for your brochure.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I usually put a comma in the opening salutation of an email—“Hi, Megan”—and this always pleases Megan, a journalist, who believes email salutations should follow the rules of dialogue punctuation. But when I write to Ruth, a physical therapist, I revert to “Hi Ruth,” honoring Ruth’s opinion that a comma after “Hi” in an email looks nerdy. Are Megan and I correct? Is Ruth on to something? Valuing my friendship with each, should I continue to respect the opinions of both?
A. Your question sent the team here into a dithering frenzy. After several meetings and polls, however, the decision is in: you and Megan are a good match, but you should probably let your friendship with Ruth fade. (The punctuation, for emailing purposes, is moot.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are editing a book on global climate change to be published in the United States. What is the convention regarding using
metric terms in US books? Should the US equivalents appear along with the metric? Or should all measures be converted to US?
If we do convert, should we spell out the English measures?
A. Don’t worry about a convention; you should decide what works best for your readers. US readers will
appreciate converted measures, but since the metric measures are already there, and you have a potentially global readership,
you might as well supply both.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. For more than two decades I have taught and insisted that editors view “on the one hand” as joining with “on the other hand.” Both should be present and what follows each should be parallel. CMOS does not acknowledge that need. In fact, the book constantly uses “on the other hand” without “on the one hand.” How can you have an “other” without the “one”?
A. You can have it because parts of a sentence may be implied. We write, for instance, “Kate took the car; Norm, the subway,” understanding “took.” Liberties like this give English a pleasing fluidity; completely mechanical writing is usually bad writing.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m troubled by the growing use of syntax such as “The writer William Styron
lived in Paris.” My suggestion is that Mr. Styron was likely to have had many roles in life but that
the sentence structure indicates him to have been only a writer. This first became noticeable in the New York Times and later in the New Yorker and now elsewhere. I would be comfortable with “William Styron, the writer, went shopping.”
To my eyes, that is less restrictive in his lifestyle because, for example, we know that whatever he did, he also shopped.
A. You should use the syntax that troubles you the least. (I myself would feel more comfortable knowing that he also took vitamins
and brushed his teeth.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is an acceptable way to refer to myself in a Chicago-style paper? I have always been told not to use “I”:
“I disagree with Dr. Fream’s conclusion.” In the past I
have been told that I should refer to myself as “this author”: “This
author disagrees with Dr. Fream’s conclusion.” An English-teacher friend of mine,
in checking one of my papers, stated that she believes the use of “this author”
is in error.
A. Avoiding the first person used to be considered proper, but now it’s considered very formal, if not
old-fashioned. It’s not a question of correctness, however; both styles are correct. If you feel strongly
that the first person is out of place in your work, don’t use it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. An author has insisted on placing a “sic” after quoting authors who use “him” or “himself” to refer in general to persons rather than using gender-inclusive language. We think this is a bit pretentious and that the quoted material should stand on its own. Do the wise editors have any advice?
A. The wise editors agree. “Sic” is used to clarify that an error appeared in the original and was not introduced by the writer quoting it. No one reading “him” or “himself” would think it was a typo. Please see CMOS 13.61.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have learnt that it is wrong to make adjectives out of verbs. Please advise if “increased”
is used correctly in the following sentence: Increased competition from international players interested in India is a key
downside risk. I refer to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.
A. That usage is fine. And isn’t Advanced an adjective made out of a verb? It’s good to be suspicious of rules that prohibit common usage.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do you handle words that do not appear in the dictionary? Are they considered wrong? Within my documentation the writer
uses the word “Typomatic.” This means when you are in our software and start typing
a word, the word appears in the field as you type the word. In Merriam-Webster this word does not appear.
A. The way to handle words not in the dictionary is to think about whether they are appropriate anyway. “Typomatic,”
in the context you describe, is understandable, concise, and slightly humorous. A good editor would search for “Typomatic”
online to see whether it’s commonly used (yes), whether it’s a trademarked term
(yes), and whether its meaning is the same as in her text (no). She would then consider whether to allow it. That’s
the hard part; it calls for editorial judgment. Be prepared to give reasons for your decision. And as you’ve
guessed by now, “It’s not in the dictionary” is not a good
reason.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]