Q. When asking someone “how are you”? Is it appropriate to use “I
am good” in lieu of “I am well”?
A. “I’m good” is the currently popular slang reply, and “I’m
well” is the formal reply. “I’m fine”
is a nice compromise, if you don’t want to sound ignorant or stuffy—and don’t
mind sounding middle-aged.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work in a law office where they regularly use terms like “via email” or “via the US mail.” I had been taught that “via” actually means “by way of” not “by means of.” In other words, we travel from one city to another city via a certain route; we send a message by email. I realize that English usage is an evolutionary process and that common but otherwise incorrect grammar ultimately can become “correct.” Is that what has happened to via?
A. Any dictionary—even a Latin one—will tell you that “by means of” is one definition of “via.” You seem to be suggesting that words must be used literally in order to be used correctly, but it’s never been incorrect to use words figuratively. Even ancient writers of Latin understood that “road” or “way” can also mean “method,” and they used the word “via” accordingly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. As an editor of regulatory documents, I routinely come across sentences in which the subject is an inanimate object but the
verb denotes something only a person can do. Examples are “this document analyzes the hazards”
and “the analysis considers the environmental impacts.” Does this type of thing
have a name? Inappropriate anthropomorphism or personification? Is there a rule I can cite when explaining to the author why
I have suggested rewording the sentence?
A. Why reword it? Documents do analyze and present and consider. They discuss and bemoan and mangle and make mockeries of things.
There’s no rule that restricts writers to using the literal meanings of words. If it gets to the point
where the documents are ordering in pizza, consider rewording.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question concerns the use of British vs. American spellings in quoted material when the quoted material has not yet been published. In a technical report I’m editing, we are changing British to American spellings per our in-house style guide. But there are quite a few quotations from a questionnaire that was conducted as part of the research report. The quotations were submitted with British spellings. Should these quotes be changed to American spellings to match the American style of the rest of the report? I did see in CMOS 7.3 that “in quoted material, however, spelling is left unchanged,” but I’m wondering whether we should make an exception to the rule here for consistency within the book.
A. No, we really do mean that in quoted material, spelling must not be changed, other than to correct obvious typos. Consistency isn’t a goal, since there’s no way that written material can conform in style or spelling to that of every writer who quotes it later. Whether the quoted material has been published or not doesn’t matter.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am writing a short story in first person. Does the tense need to be in the present as I tell it or in the past? The story is a past memory.
A. You get to decide, but keep in mind that extended passages in the present tense can become tedious. It’s sometimes effective in conveying suspense (The doorknob rattles. I pick up the carving knife . . . ) or ennui (He sits reading. I sigh. He looks up, annoyed . . . ), but you should have a clear idea of why it would suit your story. Write a paragraph in the present tense and then rewrite it in the past, and see which sets the tone you want.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It seems the phrase “in regards to” is becoming more popular, but I believe it
is often misused. Shouldn’t “I want to speak to you in regards to your insurance
policy” be “I want to speak to you in regard to your insurance policy”?
A. You’re right; “in regard to” is the correct usage. We give
our regards to our friends, to their mothers, and to Broadway; insurance policies don’t merit the same
enthusiasm. But because “in regards to” is already pervasive in all these contexts,
it will likely be considered standard English in time.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a book, and many persons mentioned in early chapters appear later. When the author provides
biographical information about the person in the early chapters, he often says something like “Mary
Smith would become superintendent of schools in 1976.” The “woulds”
are becoming annoying. I suppose we could alter them by using “will.” But because
the text is overwhelmingly in the past tense (because it’s speaking about the past) I’m
wondering if something like the following could work now and then as an alternative to all the “woulds”:
“In 1976 Mary Smith became superintendent of schools.” Would putting that in parentheses
be enough of an indicator to the reader that we’re slipping something in that they might like to know?
A. I agree that this use of “would” is maddening in any context except pulp magazines
(“This shy cherub of a toddler would later become the most ruthless and feared manuscript editor the
world had ever known . . .”). It should be edited out in any
of the ways you suggest. Use the past tense, however, rather than the similarly annoying “will.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it an historical novel or a historical novel?
A. In Chicago style, it’s a historical novel. Please see CMOS 5.74: “With the indefinite article, the choice of a or an depends on the sound of the word it precedes. A precedes words with a consonant sound, including /y/, /h/, and /w/, no matter how the word is spelled {a eulogy} {a historic occasion} {a onetime pass}. An comes before words with a vowel sound {an FBI agent} {an X-Files episode} {an hour ago}.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please help me to defend this. The boss thinks it’s wrong. “The fit, the style,
the stores. It’s all right here.” She thinks it should be “They’re
all right here.” Please help me defend “it’s.”
Thanks so much.
A. I’m sorry, but I can’t defend the grammar. The first sentence has three items
in it, and the plural is “they,” not “it.”
Using “it” would be like saying “Tom, Dick, Harry. He’s
the one for me.” But I think I understand what you’re aiming at. You might feel
that “They’re all right here” is too specific to be appealing.
It’s limited to fit, style, and stores, when we all want so much more! In ad-speak, “It’s
all right here” needn't refer literally to the items in the first sentence, but instead may be taken
to refer to that something more we're looking for in our shopping mall experience, like “the meaning
of life.” If the two elements are placed apart from each other in the ad, you might get away with it.
But good luck convincing your boss.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Clearly, the word “cannot” is in the dictionary as one word. But does this mean
that it is incorrect to say “can not” as two words? This controversy is raging
in my office and has some people very upset. What are your thoughts?
A. Sometimes you can not say something more easily than you can say it. In the preceding sentence, “can
not” is accurate and “cannot” wouldn’t
make sense. Constructions like that, however, are often confusing or ambiguous, in which case rephrasing is wise, e.g., Sometimes
it’s easier not to say something than to say it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]