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.
A. It needs to be rewritten, because if you remove the part that is made parenthetical by commas (“or soon will”), the part that remains (“have change to new signs”) doesn’t work. Try this: Three main planets have changed, or soon will change, to new signs.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
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.
A. CMOS sticks with the traditional sink-sank-sunk conjugation, and sank is still the first option for past tense at Merriam-Webster online. But in future if a number of authoritative dictionaries agree that the new usage has solidified, surely you won’t want Chicago to insist on an obsolete expression. Language is a living, growing thing, not a decaying one. Best not to grieve over this!
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS Editors, which way does Chicago lean—singular or plural verb in “One in ten people is/are affected”?
A. In formal written English, expressions like “one in ten” take a singular verb (is), since one is a singular noun. In informal speech and writing, the plural often sounds more natural.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is there a general rule on how to interpret a sentence like “The box must be A and B or C”? Does it mean the box must be A, and also either B or C? Or does it mean the box must be either both A and B, or just C?
A. This is the kind of instruction that makes test takers abandon hope. The general order of operations in logic is that and takes precedence over or: “The box must be A and B or C” means “The box must be (A and B) or (C).” However, a reader is left to guess whether the person who wrote the instruction knew that. Sometimes context gives a clue:
The box must be assembled and blue or black = (A) and (B or C).
The box must be taped and labeled or empty = (A and B) or (C).
The strategic insertion of either is a classic aid to comprehension:
The box must be assembled and either blue or black = (A) and (B or C).
The box must be either taped and labeled or empty = (A and B) or (C).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it acceptable to use the “from . . . to” and the “between . . . and” constructions interchangeably when referring to inclusive numbers and years? For example, “from 1900 to 1910” and “between 1900 and 1910” mean two different things to me. The first one is inclusive of the years 1900 and 1910, while the second one is not inclusive, literally meaning “from 1901 to 1909.” Others disagree with me on this.
A. Both constructions are ambiguous. The fact that people don’t agree on their meaning attests to this. For that reason, use whichever you like, and when it’s important to include or exclude a particular year (it isn’t always), make it clear by using phrases like “beginning in,” “ending in,” and “up to and including.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am a copy editor for an academic press, and I have noticed that many authors elide the “also” in the correlative conjunction “not only / but also” (regardless of whether the following clause is dependent or independent). Example: “These publications formed a body of not only opinion but aspiration.” This seems incorrect to me, but I have been advised not to correct it in page proofs. What is CMOS’s position on this?
A. CMOS omits also in a variety of “not only” constructions, although it uses “but also” more often than not. (You can search the Manual online for the phrase “not only.”) Consider the short version to be accepted; elisions like this are common in English.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In a list introduced by “such as,” is it incorrect to use or (instead of and) to connect the final two items in the list?
A. It’s not incorrect. In some cases or may be essential for clarity. For instance, “They loved to ask for a topping such as peanut butter or jelly” instead of “They loved to ask for toppings such as peanut butter and jelly.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In certain scenarios (invitations, ads, etc.), our organization sometimes omits the verb: for example, “Complimentary parking available” (with is omitted). If the verb is elided, is it still a sentence requiring a period, or is it a fragment?
A. Although it is a fragment, even fragments require periods when they appear in a paragraph. If a fragment appears apart from other text, however (on a line by itself or in a banner or burst on an invitation or flyer or sign or ad), there is often no need for end punctuation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing a report that frequently uses the phrase “be intentional about,” as in “the program is now intentional about [providing a certain service].” This seems awkward, but I’m not sure why. It also seems vague. I could use a second opinion.
A. Most jargon words and trendy phrases sound awkward and vague to those who aren’t soaked in that culture. It may begin to look better by the time you’re done editing. If the phrase is overused, of course, you could point that out and ask whether the writer was being intentional about it or would mind eliminating a few.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]