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?
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?
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?
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?
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.”
Q. Would it be a gender-biased usage if you used “man-made element”? What could be the neutral substitute, “human-made element”?
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.
Q. Greetings, I am an editor at a law firm in Tokyo. I have explained to a colleague that, in my opinion, the term “in the meantime” appears to have evolved, as certain expressions do, and now may be being used incorrectly. Based on my research, the original, and certainly, the principal, meaning of this term, which obviously functions as an adverb, is “in the intervening period.” Based on letters she has received from England and the States, she firmly believes that this is an acceptable substitute for “by the way.” Neither of us is budging on this point. Though she is quite proficient in English, as a native English speaker, I (hopefully!) have the advantage of knowing what is natural, specifically in terms of such standard introductory phrases. I’m genuinely interested in knowing if my “theory of incorrect evolution” has any merit.
Q. Is it incorrect to say: “x values are shown in table c” or “The following graph shows x”? When editing scientific reports and articles for my coworkers I tend to replace “show” and “shown” (in the context of graphs, tables, and results) with “reveal” or “demonstrate,” but I’m told this is a question of style. Am I being unreasonable, or is there a good reason why the use of “show” in scientific articles grates on my nerves?