Q. One of your inquirers included the sentence “Most people only know the one reality they’ve lived.” (This was not the subject of the person’s inquiry, which was well answered.) Should it not be “Most people know only the one reality”? “Most people only know” would imply they know it, but do not appreciate it, do not embrace it, do not examine it, etc. “Most people know only the one reality” would imply that they know the one reality but not others, almost certainly what the writer intended.
A. Your phrasing is technically correct, but Chicago only mildly disapproves of misplacing only—especially in informal contexts like the Q&A—because that’s the way people talk, and the meaning is almost always clear regardless. (Please see CMOS 5.186.) Merriam-Webster says: “After 200 years of preachment the following observations may be made: the position of only in standard spoken English is not fixed, since ambiguity is avoided through sentence stress; in casual prose that keeps close to the rhythms of speech only is often placed where it would be in speech; and in edited and more formal prose only tends to be placed immediately before the word or words it modifies.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When I see the sign OVERSIZE LOAD on the back of trucks, it feels grammatically incorrect. Shouldn’t it be OVERSIZED LOAD or OVER-SIZED LOAD? Please tell me so I can either smirk when I see this sign or apologize to my family.
A. It’s always wise to consult an authority before smirking. In CMOS you can find over listed with other prefixes at 7.89, section 4, where you’ll see it without a hyphen: overmagnified, overshoes, etc. The main entry at Merriam-Webster.com is “oversize (or oversized).”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am wondering if you can help settle a dispute. A friend of mine recently asked me to copyedit her work and we came to a point of disagreement. She wrote a sentence like the following: “A former public school teacher, I know the importance of providing adequate funding.” I argued that the sentence should start “As a former,” while she was adamant that her original sentence was grammatically correct. Is her construction appropriate, even if it is not ideal? Can you help put this question to rest?
A. Your friend’s sentence is a grammatically correct use of apposition, but most readers will stumble, expecting to read “A former public school teacher VERB HERE.” Why pull the rug out from under the reader and then try to defend the wording because it’s “grammatically correct”? You are right to change it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have an ongoing discussion with an author I edit. She’ll often begin a sentence with being that, and I change it to because, depending, of course, on the context. She feels I’m wrong to substitute because for being that. What do you say?
A. Being that is considered dialectal rather than standard English. In a novel it would be OK, especially in dialogue, but in formal contexts many readers will regard it as ungrammatical. You can check a dictionary for advice on usages like this. At Merriam-Webster.com, you can read about being that under being (conjunction).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am a copyeditor for a tiny scientific journal. I was given the following sentence: It is intriguing to note that BE has 18- to 33-fold the analgesic potency of morphine. I felt that this was incorrect and should have been changed to “18 to 33 times the analgesic potency” or “an 18- to 33-fold greater analgesic potency.” My editor overruled me by telling me that in scientific writing this is acceptable. I believe he is being confused by the fact that dictionaries give times as the definition of -fold (the true meaning of -fold is quite debatable, but that is not my question). I can’t seem to find a good reference for correct usage in this case.
A. Careful writers and editors avoid the use of -fold precisely for this reason: it’s ambiguous. From Scientific Style and Format (12.3.3, “-Fold, Factor, and Times”):
Weak
the volume increase was 3-fold [was the final volume 3 times as high as the initial volume, or was the size of the increase 3 times the initial value?]
Unambiguous
the final volume was 3 times the initial volume
the final volume was 300% of the initial volume
the final volume was 3 times the initial volume of 10 mL
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. From your July Q&A: “Comprehensive tip sheets for setting up a paper are available for free at the Turabian.org website.” Really? “For free”? Free here is an adverb modifying the verbal phrase “are available,” not a noun, and cannot be the object of the preposition for.
Q. I work for a company that produces training material for the mining industry. A machine in the mining process uses ceramic beads to grind down rocks. We refer to these ceramic beads as “grinding media.” Is it appropriate to treat “grinding media” as a singular noun? For example: “The grinding media consists of ceramic beads with a size of 3.5 to 5.0 mm.”
A. Media is not supported as a singular in this context. When media stands for “news media,” you can use the singular, but for other meanings, media is plural and takes a plural verb. What’s more, even though the words beads is plural, there is still only one grinding medium. If the medium were an uncountable item like sand, you would probably use “grinding medium” and a singular verb without a second thought. Please see CMOS 5.14 and also 5.250 (s.v. “media; mediums”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How can I look up words like “illegal alien” or “lady” that are hurtful to the people described?
A. Use search terms like “bias-free writing,” “slurs to avoid,” or “offensive terms.” To find general advice on how to write sensitively, you can search for “inclusive language” or “conscious style.” CMOS 5.251–60 (on bias-free language) might help. You can also find lots of advice at Conscious Style Guide.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This is sort of a dangler, and yet it seems OK: “As a captain, most of my duties are administrative.” I rewrote it to be safe, but is that kind of construction OK?
A. Not OK! That’s a dangler of the type an editor should not let pass. Good catch.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing an advertising brochure that says, “With more cruise departures from more convenient ports, you’ll find an itinerary that’s just right for you.” A colleague asks, “More than what or whom? You should not use a comparative word like more without providing the comparison. More than other cruise lines offer? With more cruise departures from more convenient ports than other cruise lines offer?” Is this true or have we evolved a little in terms of ad copy?
A. It’s the peculiar privilege of advertisers to weasel out of specifics. “We give you more!” is a time-honored pitch. Your colleague sounds like a stand-up kind of person whose sensibilities might not be tough enough for this game. Caveat emptor.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]