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.]
Q. I regularly come across sentences in which “only” strikes me as being misplaced. An example: “Fish were only collected from the western portion of the pond,” which I think should be rewritten “Fish were collected only from . . .” because the former placement of “only” means “merely” or implies that something other than collecting could have been possible, whereas it is clear from the context that “only” is used to mean “there and nowhere else.” Am I correct? Or only nuts?
A. You’re not nuts; that’s the standard usage, but it has long been considered pedantic to disallow the front-loading of “only” when it’s unlikely to cause confusion. Fowler’s Modern English Usage, which discusses the issue at length, acknowledges that at times placement is critical to meaning, but encourages writers to play it by ear otherwise. CMOS 5.186 also discusses the use and misuse of this term.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am a technical writer responsible for procedures used by electronics technicians. I am struggling with the best choice
among documents I’ve inherited: the use of will, shall, must, are to, should (or anything better?) in
sentences such as the following: “Work will not be performed on energized components if the surrounding
area is wet.” This use of “will” is very off-putting to
me; my choice would be “should.”
A. Word choice depends on the precise meaning you want to convey; it’s not a good idea to restrict yourself
to a single choice. I agree that “should” fits well in the sentence you quote
if it’s intended as an instruction. “Will” works in a statement
about what someone is planning to do. The use of the passive voice probably contributes to your indecision, although I realize
it’s the way such manuals are conventionally written. But why not rebel and write clearly and directly?
Write “Do not work on energized components if the surrounding area is wet,” if
that’s what you mean. I hope you’ll campaign to improve the texts you’ve
inherited.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Would it be a gender-biased usage if you used “man-made element”? What could
be the neutral substitute, “human-made element”?
A. We try to avoid using “man-made,” especially when the context doesn’t
mean “made by men.” Miller and Swift give the following alternatives in their
Handbook of Nonsexist Writing: artificial, handmade, hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and constructed.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am taking a medical transcription class, where the teacher constantly states the adverbs before the main verbs in the sentence. When I correct this in the transcript, I get it counted wrong. According to the AAMT book of standards this should be corrected, so the doctor does not sound illiterate. The teacher states that the following is incorrect: It has actually been only ten months since I last saw him, but he unexpectedly was scheduled sooner than he had planned. She says it should be typed: It has actually been only ten months since I last saw him, but he was unexpectedly scheduled sooner than he had planned. Please give me some advice.
A. Contemporary grammar books dismiss the AAMT’s rule as a bugaboo. CMOS 5.171 says, “There has never been a rule against placing an adverbial modifier between the auxiliary verb and the principal verb in a verb phrase. In fact, it’s typically preferable to put the adverb there {the heckler was abruptly expelled} {the bus had been seriously damaged in the crash}.” And let’s hope no one’s life ever depends on adverb placement.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]