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.]
Q. I work as an editor for a law firm in Taiwan and was asked whether there is a difference between “attachment” and “enclosure” at work today. One camp is saying that something that is sent along with an email can only be called an “attachment,” and something sent along with a traditional letter or a fax can only be referred to as an “enclosure”; meanwhile, another camp makes no distinction between “attachment” and “enclosure,” or for that matter, “to attach” and “to enclose.”
A. This seems like a lot of heavy weather over a fairly simple question. If the document you are sending with a letter is attached with a paper clip or staple or chewing gum or whatever, then it’s attached. If it’s not attached, then it’s probably enclosed. If you attach something electronically to an email message, then it’s attached. If you paste it into the message, you might say it’s enclosed or included or pasted below.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. To me, 12:00 is either noon or midnight, never a.m. or p.m. I keep seeing copy that says “before 12 p.m.” and I can’t convince the copywriters that this is confusing. Can you cite any rule that would clarify this once and for all?
A. Yes. Please see CMOS 9.38: “Except in the twenty-four-hour system (see 9.39), numbers should never be used to express noon or midnight (except, informally, in an expression like twelve o'clock at night). Although noon can be expressed as 12:00 m. (m. = meridies), very few use that form. And the term 12:00 p.m. is ambiguous, if not illogical.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A few of my colleagues in the office seem to be making no distinction between “as well as”
and “and.” I find the dictionary definition (“and in addition”)
less than clear—although notably the examples pair only two items. Surely you would not provide a list
including items “one, two, three, as well as four”?
A. Sometimes there is a distinction. “As well as” can act as a conjunction meaning
“and in addition” (or simply “and”):
He was handsome as well as clueless. But it can also be a preposition meaning “besides”
or “in addition to,” in which case it’s not an exact substitute
for “and.” That’s why we write, “He
was handsome and funny as well as clueless” rather than “He was handsome, funny,
as well as clueless.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]