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.]
Q. I’ve agreed to help a friend copyedit his dissertation (Ph.D., history). My friend uses “entitled”
instead of “titled” when referring to conferences, books, dissertations, and articles.
Examples include: He presented his work at a 1990 conference entitled “History and Education”;
and Sam Smith’s 1964 dissertation, entitled “The Literacy Movement,”
argues against Brown’s theory. OED marks this use of entitled as archaic. But it is not my dissertation, and I’m being paid only in beer.
What would CMOS do?
A. I agree that “entitled” sounds a bit pompous; its overuse could become tedious. CMOS would demand either a little respect or a more reasonable wage.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A colleague insists that this sentence is both ungrammatical and misuses a metaphor: “One of the major
benefits of cloned stem cells could be as a more accurate window on diseases.” While I think the sentence
is clumsy, I don’t see the mistake in grammar. And, while “accurate window”
also isn’t elegant, a quick search on the web turned up plenty of uses of “accurate
window” on reputable academic and government agency sites. Who’s right?
A. It might be technically grammatical (I’m still averting my eyes), but it’s so
awful that you can’t take refuge there. And even if you did find some reputable sites using the phrase
“accurate window” (how many pages past all the Accurate Window and Door companies
did you have to scroll?), please don’t let yourself be encouraged by the fact that reputable sites feature
bad writing. Listen to your colleague.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When I grammar-checked the following sentence: “Please note that this account is not registered to
you, as the Tax Identification Number on the account and your Social Security Number are not an exact match,”
the grammar check indicated that the sentence should read “is not an exact match.”
Please advise.
Q. My question concerns the grammatical morass of using “due to” in a manuscript only to have a diligent copy editor consistently cross out the phrase and replace it with “caused by,” “as a result of,” or “resulting from.” The way I tend to use it is, e.g. “The optimism about human progress due to mechanization or technology . . .” Am I wrong? I am wasting hours of my life stetting these (as I see them, mistaken) changes. Is it wrong to care so very deeply? Should I just go have some tequila and simmer down?
A. Send the tequila to the copy editor; she’s just doing her job, following CMOS 5.250 (s.v. “due to”). Meanwhile, it might comfort you to know that Merriam-Webster is more mellow on the subject: “The objection to ‘due to’ as a preposition is only a continuation of disagreements that began in the 18th century over the proper uses of ‘owing’ and ‘due.’ ‘Due to’ is as grammatically sound as ‘owing to,’ which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognized as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid ‘due to.’ ”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]