Usage and Grammar

Q. Help! Can you please tell me which is correct: “if one or more component is ineffective,” “if one or more components is ineffective,” or “if one or more components are ineffective.” The document I’m reviewing uses all three constructions, and I haven’t been able to find any solid guidance on which is correct.

Q. I’m having an argument with my English teachers over what I think is a grammatical mistake in Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story A Study in Scarlet. The sentence in question is: “The Daily News observed that there was no doubt as to the crime being a political one.” Since I’m fairly certain “being a political one” is a gerund and not a participial phrase, I think that crime should be changed to crime’s, but multiple English teachers have told me I am incorrect (yet the arguments they presented do not make sense to me whatsoever). Is the sentence correct as is, or did Doyle make a grammatical mistake?

Q. Hello, Chicago. I am slightly confused about what the difference between “compare with” and “compare to” is. Paragraph 5.195 seems to suggest that it’s a matter of whether one is making a “literal comparison” or a “poetic or metaphorical comparison,” whereas 5.250 says it’s a matter of whether one is identifying “both similarities and differences” or “primarily similarities.” What’s the rundown?

Q. This may sound existential, but is the appropriate word be or is in the following sentence: In the end, it is actual life, whether it be easy or difficult.

Q. Please let me know your thoughts on using compete as follows: “The grants are competed annually.” I’m inclined to rewrite the sentence.

Q. Is it appropriate to delete man or woman from chair when presenting someone’s official job title? For example, would you recommend saying “Joe Schmo, chair of company A” even if that person’s title is listed as chairman on the company’s website?

Q. How do you feel about lastly, as in, “Lastly, a study of cancer patients . . .”?

Q. I’m unable to find in CMOS, 17th ed., whether the following sentence is acceptable or needs to be rewritten, as it has both a past and future time but only a future verb: Three main planets have, or soon will, change to new signs.

Q. I just read this line in an AP news article: “Spanish stocks sunk as the country grappled with its most serious national crisis in decades.” Then I looked up sunk in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary to find that they define the word as both the past tense and past participle of sink! Please tell me CMOS is not adopting this form of language erosion. I contend that sank is the past tense of sink in the same way that shrank is the past tense of shrink. It seems that understanding of past participles versus past tense is quickly vanishing.

Q. CMOS Editors, which way does Chicago lean—singular or plural verb in “One in ten people is/are affected”?