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.]
Q. I work for a software company catering to law firms. In a law firm’s name you might use “et
al.” if the firm name is long. What is the proper way of doing so?
A. Here’s an example: for
Humboldt, Fitzsimmons, Joyce, Pasternak, and Chaliapin
you would write
Humboldt, Fitzsimmons, et al., is launching a new partnership with . . .
or
Humboldt et al. is launching a new partnership with . . .
The Latin “et al.” (et alia [neut.], et alii [masc.], or et aliae [fem.]) simply means “and others” and may be treated as its grammatical equivalent.
Notice that I am employing a singular verb when talking about the firm (I am imagining a firm, rather than two or more attorneys)—though
I can also imagine a preference for using the plural form of the verb.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Could you please tell me the difference between toward and towards?
A. Yes, I think so, with the help of the American Heritage dictionary (1995, CD-ROM), which states: “Some critics have tried to discern a semantic distinction
between toward and towards, but the difference is entirely dialectal. Toward is more common in American English; towards is the predominant form in British English.” Our press, being American, favors “toward.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the proper use of “would” or “could”
in sentence structure? For example, would you please close the door? Or, could you please close the door?
A. I don’t see much difference. But I would suppose that “would” is more polite, because it expresses the idea of probability, and of willingness, and of the desire that something be done, whereas “could” is more in the realm of ability (yes I can).
And according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “would” is used to make a polite request. But then again, a similar thing is said about “could”: “Used to indicate tentativeness or politeness. I could be wrong. Could you come over here?”
Now, as far as I’m concerned, it becomes then a matter of context and tone. Look at the difference between these two sentences, for example:
Would you do me a favor?
Would you please just shut up.
And even “will” could be used interchangeably with “would” or “could.”
Perhaps “could” and “would” are just both vying for what is a sort of awkward subjunctive mood, trying to put a command into the mode of the hypothetical, to increase the possibilities of expression—toward either politeness or irony (e.g., changing the tenor of “Please close the door”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A number of educated friends tell me that “sans” is archaic and affected; they
frown when I use it and instead encourage “without.” What do you think?
A. In my opinion, sans cannot be “archaic”: it is the modern French word for “without,”
as I’m sure you know. More than fifty million French people use it every single day, and though some
may say French culture and therefore language is passé, the French would disagree. As for whether “sans”
is affected in English, that’s certainly a matter of personal style. Some would say that any attempt
to use French within English is affected (her hair is the color du jour; I’m applying a sort of faux
finish to this wall). But CMOS, as far as I know, tends not to pass judgment on rhetorical idiosyncrasies, at least those that do not introduce a lack of
clarity.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]