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.]
Q. We can’t seem to resolve this question and are hoping you can help. Which sentence is correct: “I just wish she was still alive” or “I just wish she were still alive”? As I understand it, “were” is used with a singular subject as a subjunctive to express an unreal condition. “If she were alive today . . .” My vote is with the second sentence, but we have some dissent because it doesn’t sound right to others in this office. Can you help put this to rest? Thanks in advance.
A. You are right; it’s a subjunctive. And if it doesn’t sound right to your colleagues, is it because they are under thirty? (I have a feeling nobody teaches the subjunctive anymore.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. re your Q: “. . . should be modified by the masculine form of the adjective—‘emeritus’—regardless of the professor’s gender.” Let’s stomp this out! “Sex” is not a dirty word! People come in SEXes, not genders.
A. Sorry, but academe tends to disagree with you. “Sex,” while not a dirty word, is considered biological in connotation; “gender” is seen as a social construction. And since CMOS is written mainly for the ivory-towered gang, we acknowledge the distinction.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This might not be a point of grammar so much as a question of style, but how would you define the usage of the phrase “as
such”? Could you argue for a strict explanation of when its use may or may not be appropriate? Many
thanks for tackling this one.
A. I’m glad you asked. Literature and speech abound with dangling usage of this phrase. “As
such” is not a substitute for “therefore.” Rather, “such”
must refer to an antecedent noun or noun phrase in order for “as such” to make
grammatical sense (and yes, it’s a matter of grammar). As a test, ask yourself “as
what?”
Correct: We were a gaggle of skinny, giggling adolescent girls. As such [As what? As a gaggle of girls], we were immediately
drawn to the crowd of tall, goofy boys.
Correct: The matter was left to a group of indecisive ninnies. As such [As indecisive ninnies], they resorted to the toss
of a coin.
Incorrect: Because of the accident, he arrived at the dock an hour late. As such [As what? No antecedent], he missed the boat
and forfeited his deposit.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is the following sentence grammatically incorrect, and if so, why? “My point will hopefully become clear in what follows.” I’ve been told that this sentence misuses the word “hopefully”—is that true?
A. Your sentence is fine (check any good dictionary). Some grammarians will argue that it’s the person who is hopeful, not the point, and that “I hope my point will become clear” and “I am hopeful that my point will become clear” are the grammatically correct ways to say this. Merriam-Webster, however, provides credentials for “hopefully” as a disjunct adverb, similar to “luckily,” “clearly,” and others. In CMOS such “sentence adverbs” are discussed in paragraphs 5.157 and 5.250 (s.v. “hopefully”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]