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.]
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.
A. Your theory is probably correct, but that doesn’t mean you can do anything about it. An expression evolves because people understand the new meaning and begin to use it that way. In time, dictionaries record the new meaning and resisters begin to look like fuddy-duddies. (Nothing personal, understand.) Merriam-Webster says that the adverb “meantime” means “meanwhile,” and that the adverb “meanwhile” can mean “at the same time.” To my ear, “at the same time” could easily convey the meaning “while I’m at it,” or, as your colleague notes, “by the way.” If so, then your expression has already evolved its way into the dictionary, and your Japanese colleague would turn out to have her finger on the pulse of “natural” English.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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?
A. Tables and graphs show stuff. I can’t think of any reason to avoid saying so in the most direct way.
You’re not the first person to ask this question, however, which makes me suspect that there’s
a superstition floating around out there prohibiting this usage. (My reference books are silent on the issue.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It has come to my attention, over the last few years, that people are now using the phrase “different than” instead of “different from.” Please warn your readers against this gross misuse of the English language!
A. Yikes—instead, let’s dodge this bullet. Although British English eschews the use of “different than” and Chicago prefers to avoid it, it’s not incorrect, and in fact is sometimes the more elegant choice when followed by a clause. Various dictionaries and grammars support this view, including not just CMOS (see the entry for “different” in the glossary at 5.250) but also Fowler’s Modern English Usage and Merriam-Webster.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have often disliked authors in the habit of introducing a statement with Firstly or Secondly, and so on. Are there any good rules on this or should it be banished from usage?
A. Merriam-Webster (which Chicago follows) seems just fine with firstly, and secondly. And according to the American Heritage Dictionary, the meaning of firstly is “In the first place; to begin with; first.” So I guess you’ll have to find another reason for disliking authors.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When writing about an author’s work, do you write in the past or present tense? Example: The author
argues (argued) that it was the correct choice. Please help. Thanks.
A. Different kinds of writing have different conventions. In academic writing, it’s not wrong to use the
past tense when quoting written works, but it’s conventional to use the “historical
present,” even when the author is dead (Heraclitus says, “No one steps into the
same river twice”). In a newspaper interview, however, the present implies that someone is in the habit
of saying something, rather than that he or she said it one time, and it is more likely to be found with paraphrasing than
with a direct quotation (Mr. Obama says that the health care system needs fixing). “Said”
in the same context implies that a person said something on a particular occasion (in his speech last night Mr. Obama said
that the health care system needs fixing). And “said” used with quotation marks
indicates that the person spoke the actual words on a particular occasion (Mr. Obama said, “We spend
one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier
for it”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I hope that you can settle a minor dispute between a colleague and me. In a journal article that we are writing, we have
a passage similar in syntax to the following: “I don’t like animals. An exception
is cats, which are warm and furry.” The dispute is over the verb in the first clause in the second sentence,
“An exception is cats . . .”
My colleague believes that the verb in this clause should be plural, “are,” since
the subject is the plural noun “cats.” It isn’t clear to
me that the subject in the sentence is “cats.” Who is correct?
A. You are. In English the first noun gets to be the subject, so “exception” is
the subject. And since it’s singular, “is” is the verb.
You have noticed, however, that this is an awkward sentence that will probably make half of your readers wonder whether you
got it right, so instead of using the technically correct phrasing, why not rewrite it altogether? Think “aside
from cats,” “other than cats,” “Cats
are an exception,” and so on.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]