Q. What is the rule about using a product or company name that implies the type of product to avoid redundant words, for example,
Fred’s Bakery bakery products are the best in town? What is the justification for not including the
adjective for products (bakery)?
Q. Is the word “not” subject to the “neither . . . nor” rule? As in: “I will not be angry nor upset if you don’t attend my party.”
Q. The word “whose” used as a possessive with an inanimate object never sounds correct
to me. Example: She had changed into a long green dress whose very modesty highlighted a long lean body. The modesty refers
to the green dress. Is it correct to say it this way? I always thought “whose”
referred to a person.
A. Yes, it’s correct, and there really isn’t an elegant alternative. The old Fowler’s Modern English Usage might give you a chuckle. After some ridiculous examples that use “of which” in
order to avoid “whose,” the article closes with, “Let us,
in the name of common sense, prohibit the prohibition of whose inanimate; good writing is surely difficult enough without the forbidding of things that have historical grammar, and present
intelligibility, and obvious convenience, on their side.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In reading a marketing piece written by a co-worker, I thought that the following sentence contained a possessive pronoun that disagrees in number with its antecedent: “We tailor each client’s portfolio to meet their investment objectives.” Personally, I think “their” should be “his,” “his/her,” or “its” because “each client” is singular. Another approach, in my opinion, would be to make the entire sentence plural, i.e., “We tailor our clients’ portfolios to meet their investment objectives.” However, that construction loses some of the connotation that each portfolio is individually constructed for each client. Please help!
A. Although your colleagues are using bad grammar, that construction is very popular and tough to fight. The use of “their” replaced the use of “his” as the latter pronoun came to be considered sexist. “His or her” can get annoying if used frequently. Writers of lengthy books or articles can use “his” in some passages and “her” in others. That’s not an option if you are writing a short document or a slogan, but rephrasing (often by changing the subject to a plural) is almost always possible. Since you don’t want a plural subject, you could say, “We tailor each portfolio to meet the client’s investment objectives.” For more ideas, see our “nine techniques for achieving gender neutrality” (CMOS 5.255).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Do I need “the” before “hoi polloi”?
I know that hoi means “the” in Greek, so a second “the”
would seem redundant.
A. One of the great privileges of being American is that we get to mangle other languages in adopting them. If we can order
“a side of au jus” with a sandwich, I guess we can refer to “the
hoi polloi,” no? In any case, it’s standard English to use the article.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a work of historical fiction set in the 1950s in Texas. The author is writing about segregation and racism.
She wants to use the language of the times, but I just don’t feel comfortable having so many uses of
“ni——s” in the text. (The word is
currently spelled out in the text; I’ve redacted it here.) I have advised her that these terms are considered
highly offensive by today’s standards and should be used rarely. Instead, she added the term in more
places. Any suggestions on how to handle using these terms? Should I use something like the above? Put them in quotations?
Italics?
A. Unless you are also the acquiring editor or the publisher of the book, you shouldn’t have to decide
this issue alone. (If you are the editor or publisher, then you’d better get comfortable with making
these kinds of decisions!) Please ask for guidance. Different houses have different guidelines for the inclusion of offensive
language, and fiction often requires its use, especially in historical works. Even so, taste and tact require that it not
be used more than is necessary, and if your author is being difficult or unreasonable, you might need to let a higher authority
intervene. If the author is under contract, she may be obliged to accept the editing. Where you do allow the language, present
it straightforwardly rather than dilute its power by intruding with editorial quotation marks or italics or censored letters.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. The ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) is a British set of books describing best practices for the IT service
provider. The books are poorly written, a mess of needlessly long and stultifyingly passive sentences. That fact aside, the
ITIL authors also randomly capitalize nouns that they think worthy. What is your position on this quaint custom of eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century English literature? Whilst you dwell on your response, is there ever a situation where “utilize”
adds anything more to its synonym “use” than two extra syllables and a healthy
dose of pretentiousness? Looking forward to your glib, yet wise, response.
A. I would characterize our position on the capitalization of odd nouns as one of gentle disdain, and our position on “utilize”
as one of conservative vigilance. (If you look at a good dictionary, you’ll see that the word does have
a nuance of its own, and so is occasionally useful in the right context.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi. I used the following sentence in an email: “Without apologies, I’m sending this Voice article on in case you got depressed (like I did) by the Reading at Risk report or various articles about it.” Someone responded and told me that using “like I did” is grammatically incorrect. Is it really? And if it is NOT incorrect, can you tell me what I can reference to support my wording? (I.e., can I find info on this in the Chicago Manual of Style, and if so, under what topic?) Thanks so much for any help you can offer!
A. I’m afraid your correspondent is right (if not tactful). The correct wording is “as I did.” CMOS, in its “Glossary of Problematic Words and Phrases” (5.250, under “like; as”), has this to say: “The use of like as a conjunction (as in the old jingle ‘like a cigarette should’) has long been a contentious issue. Purists insist that as must introduce a clause and like must always be a preposition coupled with a noun {cool like springwater}. The fall of that old rule has been predicted for five decades, but today like as a conjunction is still not standard.” For even more on this, see 5.185.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear Editor: Do you believe that number matters? In the following sentence about a company that makes washboards, is it “Today,
a half dozen women continue building a household anachronism that’s seldom seen anymore”
or “Today, a half dozen women continue building household anachronisms that are seldom seen anymore”?
Thank you.
A. Number does matter, but the problem here is that washboards (plural) are an anachronism (singular). To say that they are
anachronisms is correct as well, but in the same way that you would say these women (collectively) are doing a job or creating
a product or pursuing a dream, it’s idiomatic to say that they are building an anachronism. If you use
the plural, it loses the collective sense, which in some contexts is accurate, but I think not in this one.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Trying to sound scientific, students love to use the phrase “as evidenced.” This
strikes me as grammatically correct but stylistically atrocious. Am I alone with this feeling?
A. I don’t think it’s atrocious, since the phrase is conventional in scientific
and legal contexts. I think it’s kind of cute. How can you keep from smiling when your students say
it?
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]