Q. Which is correct, “If I were you . . .” or “If I was you . . .”?
A. Write “if I were you.” This is an example of the present subjunctive, which uses the past-tense “were” to express something that’s impossible or hypothetical. The past subjunctive uses “had”: e.g., “if I had been you.” The construction “if I was you” should be considered colloquial. See CMOS 5.120, 5.125, and 5.126 (i.e., chapter 5, on grammar, by Bryan Garner) for more on the subjunctive mood.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work for an organization that uses a fair amount of corporate lingo in its publications. The expression “visibility
into” seems to be widely used in place of the expression “insight into”
. . . this confuses me (okay, it also annoys me). Based on the common definition
of “visibility,” does it really make sense to say that one has “visibility
into” something? Before I start a campaign to eradicate what I see as an unsightly phrase, can you tell
me if the phrase “visibility into” meets the standards of acceptable usage?
A. Sometimes it’s necessary to avoid turning your nose up at a word or phrase that seems to be the awkward
brainchild of new ventures—unless, of course, something old and standard does the job as well or better.
A glance at the first hundred or so of the 147,000-odd Google hits (as of Monday, October 20, 2003) for “visibility
into” suggests that the phrase is being used these days primarily to do a couple of things: (1) convey
that whatever is going on—corporate accounting, say—is entirely transparent, or
(2) indicate that software can offer some understanding of activities that are difficult to conceptualize or see—such
as data from myriad sources moving over a network, or products moving along a supply chain. An example of the second use might
go like this:
Without the kind of software that provides continuous visibility into activity across a range of networks using a variety
of protocols, you might as well send your entire staff on a field trip, asking them to report back every few seconds with
a question: “Can you hear me now?”
This sort of usage can easily turn into jargon (or euphemism; think “surveillance”),
but I wouldn’t automatically rush to find a substitute. First, the phrase itself doesn’t
violate any grammatical rules. Second, in technical contexts that involve physical monitoring, “visibility
into” might be more appropriate than the relatively metaphorical “insight into”—a
phrase that’s lost most of its visual roots.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Please help resolve a debate: Is it proper (or good) academic form to begin a sentence with a conjunction: “And I believe that is true.” “But editors differ on this rule.” “Nor is this uncommon.” I say it is improper in academic writing that is heading for publication, while others with journalism training say that it is correct. We are editors for an academic law review.
A. CMOS includes Bryan Garner’s opinion that there is “no historical or grammatical foundation” for considering sentences that begin with a conjunction such as and, but, or so to be in error (see paragraph 5.203). Fowler’s agrees (3rd ed., s.v. “and”), citing examples in the OED that date back to the ninth century and include Shakespeare. The conjunctions or and nor can be added to the list. None of this means that it is not possible to abuse the privilege. Sentences should begin with a conjunction only when the result is perfectly clear and more effective than some other alternative. What about academic writing, then? Good academic writing is of course difficult to produce, and there is no guarantee that allowing sentence-starting conjunctions improves matters. But the alternative—enforcing a baseless restriction—probably doesn’t help.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have been using the title “professor emerita” with the names of retired female professors. Now one of those professors insists that I have confused sex with grammatical gender. She writes, “The phrase is Latin; the noun ‘professor’ is masculine and should be modified by the masculine form of the adjective—‘emeritus’—regardless of the professor’s gender.” Since CMOS uses “professor emerita” as part of an example at paragraph 8.28, I’m assuming that this usage is correct. Can you weigh in on this?
A. The professor has a point. But one of the nice things about the Latin word professor is that it has survived absolutely unchanged into contemporary English. And most people intend the English word professor in the phrase “professor emerita.” In that case, though professor is invariable and therefore neutral for gender (but not for number), it is perfectly acceptable to adjust emeritus to suit the gender (and number) of the professor(s): emeritus, emerita, emeriti, emeritae. But in this case of grammatical correctness coming up against political correctness, there is no clear winner. If you need to cite another authority, Merriam-Webster includes an example with emerita—without any warning about usage problems.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have lived abroad now almost twenty years and fear my English may be tainted by other grammars. A friend, who has been
married three times to three different women, recently wrote: “She reminds me of my first and third
wives.” I feel that it should be: “She reminds me of my first and third wife.”
In other words, “She reminds me of my first (wife understood but not expressed) and my third wife.”
There are other languages with this sort of unexpressed noun usage where the adjective is marked by both gender and syntax.
Am I totally off base here?
A. When “and” is used to group modifiers that refer to more than one instance of
the same noun, plurality is generally conferred upon the noun: “My first and third wives were just as
nice as your seventh and tenth husbands.” This can be done seamlessly in English because adjectives
(like “first” and “third”) do not
vary according to the number of the noun they modify. A common instance of this usage, especially in academic writing, involves
centuries. Note the differences in the following sentences:
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were alike in at least one respect: both were lived out, in some corners of the globe,
to the music of Mozart.
and
The first through the eighteenth centuries are all characterized by being entirely lost to the art of photography.
but
The year 2000 was in the twentieth or twenty-first century, depending upon your sense of numbers.
and
Léon, a historical region and former kingdom in northwest Spain, was united with Asturias from the eighth
to the ninth century.
“And” and “through” tend to impart
plurality; “or” and “to” tend not
to.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am uncertain about the correct usage in the following sentence: “There is no solution, since the absolute value, by definition, can not be equal to a negative number.” I’ve looked through your book and it appears to me that it is a closed (or solid) compound word—cannot. The editor I work for insists that it is can not. Please advise.
A. The negative form of “can” is “cannot” or, contracted, “can’t.” The two-word phrase “can not” is rarely necessary: e.g., “I can eat this slice of pizza, or I can not eat it: the choice and its consequences are entirely mine.” In your example, certainly, “cannot” is correct.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a recent William Safire column, “On Language,” in the New York Times, Safire devoted the column to addressing the mistakes he might have made during 2002, and his readers’
corrections. This is part of one of them:
In that regard, the law of proximity: “Henry [Kissinger] is one of the few who has the trust of the
keepers of the secrets.” Ken Paul e-mails: “The antecedent of who is ‘the few,’ and thus the verb should be have.”
But in my style book it says this:
One in x. Formalists recommend a singular verb, arguing that “one” is the subject. For
example: One in two marriages ends in divorce.
Was William Safire right to accept the admonition of the person who corrected him?
A. Yes, William Safire (in his article “Culpa for Mea,” New York Times, January 5, 2003) was right: he (or his copyeditor) was wrong—though the rule (not quite the one you
cite) is a relatively squishy one, and most people don’t notice when it’s been
broken. Safire clearly chose situations that would allow not only for self-deprecation but for entertaining quips. He ends
the example you cite with the following: “The Yip Harburg rule of agreement: if you’re
not near the antecedent you love, you use the antecedent you’re near.” (E. M.
Harburg wrote, “If I’m not near the girl I love, I love the girl I’m
near.” Readers born after World War II might prefer the variation by Stephen Stills.) Safire’s
point, both in citing Harburg and in choosing the example, is that it’s not always easy—or
desirable—to fight the trap of attraction (not to Kissinger, but to a word that gets in the way of the
true subject of the sentence).
The rule you want is not “one in x”; rather, you should consult the rule regarding, as Fowler’s has it, “one of those who,” under “agreement”
in the third edition of that book (see p. 36, right below the discussion on “attraction”).
Most editors agree with Fowler’s: “A plural verb in the subordinate clause is recommended unless particular attention is being drawn
to the uniqueness, individuality, etc., of the one in the opening clause” (p. 550). And I just happen to be one of those editors who hate to put themselves
in opposition to both Safire and Fowler’s.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. May I please ask if nouns can sometimes be used as verbs. For example, “His emotions nuance his words.” Thank you.
A. Some verbs are of course nouns: break, hit, smile, laugh. “Nuance” has been a noun, according to both Merriam-Webster and the OED, since 1781, when Horace Walpole wrote “The more expert one were at nuances , the more poetic one should be.” It has been a verb since only 1897, when W. Archer wrote “Nor the elocutionary skill to give variety to a long speech, nuancing it, if I may say so, by means of his voice alone.” This from the OED; M-W does not recognize the verb form.
“Nuance” as a verb is one of those developments that seems to stand out. I wasn’t alive in 1897, but I seem to remember noticing a few years back that an awful lot of people were using “nuance” as a verb. It bothered me, and it still does. But I’m probably being a little reactionary.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It grates on my ear to listen to the BBC (particularly sports) newscasts talk about countries in the plural form, e.g., “England
are preparing for next week’s match.” Can this be correct? I only began noticing
it a couple of years ago, and I seem to recall that the practice even extends to cities or team names (Bayern Munich are out
of the playoffs . . .). Your assistance would be much appreciated.
A. The British are much more likely to consider collectives in the plural rather than the singular. I first remember noticing
this when reading about English rock bands back in the seventies (the Who are the loudest rock band in the world; Led Zeppelin,
some say, have sold their souls). Fowler’s points out this difference between American and British usage at various points. In American English this usage has largely
disappeared.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS, I know you aren’t a grammar usage source, but for lack of knowing where to look, I wonder if you might
know which word—“be” or “is”—would
be correct here. “The senior management plan specifies that the lump sum rate in effect at termination
(be/is) used to project interest to the regular retirement date.” I believe the correct word choice
is “be,” but I’m not sure why. Can you offer any expertise?
Thanks for your help!
A. You are right; the correct choice is “be.” This is a specific use of the subjunctive mood in English, where a dependent clause following certain verbs, including “demands,” “suggests,” “insists,” or in this case “specifies,” calls for “be” rather than “is” (or “are”). Any demand or suggestion or stipulation involves some uncertainty as to whether the outcome will be shown to have followed the rule or request. I keep examples like the one you gave straight by asking if “should” could be added: “The senior management plan specifies that the lump sum rate in effect at termination [should] be used to project interest to the regular retirement date.” “Should” expresses the kind of contingent nature that the subjunctive mood is all about. (P.S. CMOS covers grammar and usage in chapter 5.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]