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.]
Q. I am editing a novel that is written in the past tense, and a past perfect question has begun to haunt me. When speaking
of events that took place in the more remote past, does every verb need to be conjugated in past perfect, or only the first?
For example, would one write,
David had invited me to Los Angeles. “It will be fun,” he had said.
Or,
David invited me to Los Angeles. “It will be fun,” he said.
A. Such a quick switch isn’t perfectly smooth in this case, but you’ve got the right
idea—it becomes annoying to keep reading “had.” Aim for
subtlety when you segue into the simple past. Usually it will feel right at some point after a couple of sentences. You might
manage it here by the time you get to the third sentence:
David had invited me to Los Angeles. “It will be fun,” he had said. But it wasn’t
fun—it was a nightmare of sweltering smog and sleeplessness.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Good morning. What is the right preposition after the noun “change”? I thought
it was always “in.” However, Cambridge.org gives the following examples:
Let me know if there’s any change in the situation.
They’ve made a lot of changes to the house.
Now, I’m confused. Please enlighten me. Thanks.
A. The difficult thing about English is that there is almost never a single right preposition for any noun:
a change to the house
a change in the situation
a change of heart
a change for the better
a change since yesterday
A linguist might be able to explain why these usages have become conventional and are not interchangeable, but most native
speakers of English learn them intuitively, without being able to articulate the reasons. If English isn’t
your first language, lots of practice reading and listening to English is probably the best way to train your instincts.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. While incorporating Latin or Greek words into an English text, what case should be used? Take, for example, the phrase “taking
up the question of kronon kai ton kairon.” Normally, the English preposition “of” should take the
genitive, but the student is relying on a scriptural text which has the preposition peri and has reproduced the accusative case. He could have avoided the difficulty by using the English preposition “about”;
however, should he remain faithful to the Greek text or put the Greek words into the genitive, in accord with the English
preposition?
A. I don’t think the Greek or Latin phrase should be considered to be connected with the syntax of the
English except as a noun phrase. I would treat such words and phrases the same way you would a quoted phrase in English, although
case is not often explicit in English:
Consider “Sarah’s” as a possessive . . .
Although “Sarah’s” is the direct object of “consider,”
we couldn’t cast it as an accusative (Consider “Sarah” as
a possessive . . .) and preserve the intended meaning. In the same way, you shouldn’t
change a Latin or Greek term to the accusative. If it’s quoted, I would leave it in the original form;
if no particular case is required, I would use the nominative.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]