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.]
Q. Is it improper to say in a title, “Women Police: Portraits of Success”? My publisher says that it’s grammatically incorrect and that it should read “Female Police Officers: Portraits of Success” instead. I see “women police” in print everywhere, and there’s even a journal titled “Women Police.” I thought usage dictated rules of grammar, not the other way around. Your help, please.
A. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to say that usage automatically dictates the rules of grammar (since that would mean I’d have to let my kids get away with “Me and Chris need food, Mom”), it’s true that over time grammar does evolve as a result of persistent usage. The word “female” carries some dismissive, derogatory connotations (perhaps because it’s a biological term used for animals as well as humans; perhaps because of its pervasive use in crime reports), and in the last decade or so “woman” as an adjective has come to connote a more respectful attitude, replacing “lady,” a respectable but somewhat prissy and dated term. Merriam-Webster lists “woman” as an adjective, so I wouldn’t say it’s ungrammatical, although many editors do not accept the word as other than a noun. And of course nouns may be used attributively as modifiers: teacher training, student fares, carpenters union. In fact, for over a hundred years now, the phrase “woman suffrage” has been the standard way to describe the campaign to give women the vote. “Female Police Officers” may be technically correct, but I would vote for “Women.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What’s the preferred way to use the word “however” when
it compares two sentences? I was edited consistently by one editor to move it to the front of the sentence. In the following
example, is it better for “however” to start the second sentence, or is it fine
as is? Example: Some have used the commandment translated in the King James Version of the Bible “Thou
shalt not kill” as a prohibition of capital punishment. The commandment, however, refers to murder and
is accurately translated “You shall not murder” in modern translations.
A. An old rule that has pretty much faded into oblivion is that at the beginning of a sentence one should use “however”
not as a conjunction, but only as an adverb: “However old I get, I’ll never give
up bobsledding.” Your usage is correct, so it would be perverse of your editor to move it to the beginning
of the sentence, which would offend the ears of some readers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If I’m in the United States and I’m quoting a person in Canada, do I say he is
from “city, county,” or “city, Canada?”
A. Supply as much information as you think the reader you are addressing will need or appreciate, which sometimes might include
only the city (Toronto), sometimes the city and province (Hamilton, Ontario), and sometimes all that plus “Canada”
(Swan River, Manitoba, Canada). For instance, young children might need more information than adults. Or for locations in
British Columbia, readers in faraway Texas might need more help than those in nearby Seattle. As for the county, you can add
it if you think it will be meaningful to your discussion, but that seems unlikely in most contexts.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We have a disagreement in my office as to the usage of “this” as a pronoun. “The cooling holes were originally defined using two points. This was later revised to a start point and compound angles.” My coworker thinks that I need to add “definition” after “this.” While I agree it is a good idea in many cases to eliminate ambiguity, I don’t think it is required in this case. Is he right?
A. Your coworker makes a valid point in that “this” has no antecedent and is left dangling. Most readers will mentally supply “definition” or “idea,” but the reader does have to supply something. If you changed “this” to “these,” the referent could be taken to be “points,” and you would be on firmer ground, but even then, there might be initial confusion over whether “these” referred to “holes” or “points.” Although most readers would probably follow your reasoning, for the sake of precision and clarity and grammar, I’m with your colleague.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m a bond lawyer, which means that I regularly draft documents that refer to the debt service on bonds. That includes the principal of the bonds, the redemption premium, if any, on the bonds, and the interest on the bonds. Note that the prepositions attached to these categories of debt service differ: Principal “of,” but premium and interest “on.” My problem is that a common—and old—way of describing the debt service on bonds is, “the principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the bonds.” Because the phrase refers to two classes (i.e., terms that take the preposition “of” and terms that take the preposition “on”) as well as two items within one of those classes (i.e., redemption premium and interest), shouldn’t there be TWO conjunctions (i.e., “the principal of, AND redemption premium, if any, AND interest on the bonds”)? Some drafters use the construction that I have suggested is correct, but many others, citing tradition, use the single-conjunction form. Which is correct?
I realize that this could be considered arcane, but the phrase is used constantly in our documents and is therefore a constant source of annoyance to me. We lawyers need more help than most in matters of style, so you would be doing a great service by answering this query.
A. Bless your heart—everyone agrees that the language of the law needs all the help it can get. In this case, I believe you have found the solution to the problem yourself. In your effort to explain the meaning of the passage to me, you write clearly, “the principal of the bonds, the redemption premium, if any, on the bonds, and the interest on the bonds.” I don’t think I could improve on that. (Maybe from now on you and your colleagues should try to write everything as though you were trying to explain it to me.)
I’m sure your office is familiar with the Plain Language initiative promoted by Vice President Gore in the 1990s. You can find tips and examples for rewriting gobbledygook into understandable English through the Plain Language Action and Information Network. Check out the section specifically for law.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’ve gotten into an argument online with a person who said that The Chicago Manual of Style states that it is okay to use the word, “alot.” I find this hard to believe because,
“alot” is not a word, but I was unable to confirm or deny this on your site. Furthermore,
he seems to think that all spelling rules are flexible and a matter of personal style, and he again uses The Chicago Manual of Style to back his position up. Could you shed some insight onto this situation?
A. Tell your friend that CMOS says he is full of baloney, and if he doesn’t believe you, give him the URL for this page.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]