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.]
Q. Looking for proper protocol, but will accept opinions. When assigning a century to a notable figure, do you use the year of birth? So if someone is born in 1493, is he a fifteenth-century or sixteenth-century scientist?
A. There is no “protocol”; it’s just common sense. A scientist born in 1493 would be a sixteenth-century scientist—unless this was a prodigy whose main life’s work was accomplished by the age of seven. Fl. (“flourished”) is sometimes used in front of the years of a person’s greatest work, but the best plan is to explain clearly when the person lived and worked.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the distinction between yeah, yea, and yay? Is each confined to a specific usage?
A. Dictionaries are terrific for looking up what words mean. I found all these words at Merriam-Webster’s free online dictionary.
Yay means “hooray”; rhymes with day
Yea means “yes” or “indeed”; familiar to many from translations of the Bible; often used in voting (“yea or nay”); rhymes with day
Yeah means “yes”; famously used by the Beatles (“She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah”); rhymes with pretty much not anything (bleah?).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What is the rule for subject-verb agreement when a sentence has a collective noun + prepositional phrase + relative pronoun? For example, should it be “Scientists follow a set of guidelines that include x” (because the antecedent of that is guidelines), or “Scientists follow a set of guidelines that includes x” (because the subject is set)? Or does the answer differ depending on whether the writer wants to emphasize set or guidelines as the subject? And would the answer change if the sentence had “the set” instead of “a set” (as in the rule about mass noun + prepositional phrase)?
A. The verb goes with whichever noun is the subject. Often that will be clear {the box of rocks that was too wide for the door; the box of rocks that were brought back from space}. In your sentence the meaning is nearly the same whichever noun you choose, and that’s often true. The choice of article doesn’t matter {a box of rocks that was too wide; a box of rocks that were brought back from space}.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am an editor having a debate with some authors over their use of this article title: “Intangible Values of Palliative Nursing Care.” I have told them that it doesn’t make sense because there is no such thing as a value that is tangible, despite the existence of accounting terms such as “tangible value.” I prefer a title such as “Intangible Elements of Palliative Nursing Care.” What is your take on this?
A. Our take is that a good dictionary can prevent many an editorial squabble. Both tangible and intangible have a figurative meaning, which is why “tangible value” makes sense to accountants. In the same way, intangible makes sense in the article title. See Merriam-Webster Unabridged, under intangible (“2 : incapable of being defined or determined with certainty or precision”).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]