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.]
Q. Several times lately I’ve written or revised copy to change the word in the prepositional phrase following “kinds of” or “types of” to the singular from the plural—from “what kinds of cats?” “three types of errors” to “what kinds of cat,” “three types of error.” And several times a client has treated the resulting phrase like an error. I haven’t found the answer to this usage question in CMOS. What do you think?
Q. Hello: I am working on writing and editing thank-you letters to faculty and staff participants in a curriculum session for
third-year medical students. Should I treat “data” as a singular or a plural noun?
I have been looking for a definitive answer to this question in online style manuals and grammar guides. If its answer is
already in the CMOS and you could refer me to the appropriate part of the website where this information is posted, that would be excellent.
A. If you type “data” into the search box on the CMOS web page, it will give you several places where the word is discussed in our Q&A, and you’ll see that
it can be either singular or plural. For questions like this, however, I find that a dictionary is a very helpful tool. Judging
from the number of queries we receive asking about the meaning or usage of particular words, it seems that people rarely think
of using a dictionary, which is surprising, considering that it is much quicker to look up a word than to search through style
manuals—or type a question to an online advice column. There are even online dictionaries, if turning
paper pages seems too old-fashioned or too big a nuisance. In honor of your question, I’m tempted to
create a new category of Q&A column called “You Could Look It Up” (in the hopes
that readers will take the hint).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I find that some of my writers start a sentence with the word “Because,” and I am tempted to change it to “Since.” For example, one writes “Because the object is selected, it changes as you move the slider.”
I would prefer to have them use the word “Since”: “Since the object is selected, it changes as you move the slider.”
But, I am not sure of the correct usage . . . I am only going on gut instinct.
A. For editors, like physicians, the primary goal should be “First, do no harm.” If you are not sure of the correct usage, it’s safer not to meddle with the copy. In this case, your writer is correct. In fact, “Since” would be considered incorrect by traditionalists who restrict its meaning to a temporal one.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Which one is correct: “alright” or “all right”?
A. Dictionaries and style manuals still tend to indicate that alright is less legitimate than all right. The quasi- or nonstandard status of alright might be compared to that of the one-word forms of the compounds under way and a lot, both of which, to varying degrees, have had to resist the urge to merge. Context is everything. Alright is all right for rock ’n’ roll, but if you’re concerned
about appearing to stand on the favored side of the “sociological divide,” as
Fowler’s would have it, you will want to write all right (see the third edition, s.v. “all right,” which notes, among other things, that
alright seems to be popular in the personal correspondence of “the moderately educated young”).
In the case of all right versus alright, however, all this is plainly rather arbitrary—as may already be altogether obvious.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the rule for correct usage of “drive” and “ride”?
I was trying to explain this difference to a non-English-speaking colleague, but it appears somewhat illogical on the basis
of normal usage.
A. Sometimes new technologies force us into analogies. Perhaps people ride bicycles because they rode horses—particularly
at the time bicycles first became popular. Likewise, one is said to ride a motorcycle—sometimes called
a steel horse—more often than one is said to drive it. Cars, once called horseless carriages, are said
to marshal the power of many horses, and, just as one is said to drive a team of horses, one is said to drive a car. The distinction
between drive and ride doesn’t seem consistently to depend on whether the driver or the rider provides any locomotion. There
are better (worse?) examples of words that persist on the basis of analogy: how often do we dial a phone or ring up a sale
anymore?
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In the US Army supply system, writers refer to requested supplies as dues-in (more than one due-in not yet received), and dues-out (more than one due-out not yet issued to a requestor). The GPO Style Manual (paragraph 5.7) seems to prescribe due-ins and due-outs as the correct plural form (examples they give are tie-ins, run-ins, come-ons). What do you say about these plural forms? Many thanks for your help!
A. If you are thinking of “due” as an adjective, then I agree that “due-ins” would be correct. If you think of it as a noun, however, then “dues-in” would work just fine. In any case, if “dues-in” is the army colloquial, there’s probably no use fighting it. If it annoys you, try to think of it as a charming bit of insiders’ jargon.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]