Q. Is s’s’ the correct plural possessive form of s? It’d be used to show that a group of s’s owns something/multiple things. If not, could you explain why it wouldn’t work (same with if it does work)?

A. Well, yes, your example is technically correct (we applied italics to three instances of the letter s in your question). The plural of the letter s is formed with an apostrophe for the sake of clarity: s’s. The possessive form of a plural that ends in s takes an apostrophe alone: s’s’.

But for the sake of your readers, not all of whom will enjoy deciphering a four-character term that relies on a mix of italics and regular text plus two different kinds of apostrophes—the first of which, for the plural s’s, can also mark the singular possessive (which is identical: s’s)—consider spelling out the letter s, as in an ess’s curves (singular possessive) or a group of esses’ curves (plural possessive).

See also CMOS 7.15 (on the plurals of letters), 7.16 (on possessives), 7.67 (on letters as letters), 7.70 (on letters as shapes), and 7.71 (on the names of letters); for periods and commas next to apostrophes, see 6.126.

Q. Is there such a thing as a suspended en dash? What would you do in the case of “α and β particle–emitting isotopes,” for example? Does anything go after the alpha symbol, or should it have nothing, even though “particle” applies to that term?

A. There is such a thing as a suspended en dash, but it should be used only to omit a word or phrase that follows the first dash in the full phrase (i.e., before suspension):

pre–Civil War and post–Civil War [two en dashes]

becomes

pre– and post–Civil War [with a suspended en dash]

In your case, here’s what we’d do:

α particle–emitting and β particle–emitting isotopes [two en dashes]

becomes

α particle– and β particle–emitting isotopes [suspended en dash]

but not

α– and β particle–emitting isotopes [suspended en dash]

and not

α- and β-particle-emitting isotopes [suspended hyphen]

That second-to-last example (α– and β particle–emitting isotopes) asks readers to mentally supply the word particle between the alpha symbol and the en dash, which is too much to expect. And in both that example and the last one, the alpha may be misread as alpha minus.

All this assumes you’re referring to two sets of isotopes, those that emit alpha particles and those that emit beta particles. If that’s not the case—or if it is, but the text doesn’t make that clear—consider rewording (e.g., “isotopes that emit both α and β particles” or “isotopes that emit either α or β particles”).

For more on en dashes in compound adjectives, see CMOS 6.86.

Q. Does CMOS have a preference on the use of “America” as the country’s name versus the United States or US in formal writing? I know there is a distinction made for the abbreviation versus the spelled-out term, but I am curious if there is a preference on using “America” alone as the noun form of the country, not in reference to the people.

A. Though “America” is often used as shorthand for “the United States of America”—especially in speech—it’s usually better in formal writing to be more specific and use the first part of the name instead: “the United States” (or, to save space or avoid repetition, “the US”).

The adjective “American,” by contrast, is usually acceptable when referring to the United States (as in the phrase “American interests”), provided its meaning is clear from context. If “United-Statesian” weren’t so awkward (the link is to the entry in Merriam-Webster, which spells the adjective with a hyphen), then “American” might be less common than it is. If in doubt, use the adjective “US,” which is acceptable in even the most formal prose.

See also CMOS 10.37 (for “US” versus “United States”) and Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (Oxford, 2022), under “American.”

Q. If you’re following Chicago’s rules for title case (at CMOS 8.160), do you capitalize short prepositions that aren’t immediately followed by their objects? A few examples that have come up in my work recently (anonymized a bit and left lowercase for you to resolve) are “paid for by grandma,” “what will grandma dress up like?,” and “whom has grandma turned to for advice?”

A. In your examples, up looks more like an adverb—one that modifies the verb dress—than like a preposition. So let’s call it an adverb.*

But for, by, and to are more clearly prepositions (as is like, though as the last word in a title it would always be capped). So:

Paid for by Grandma
What Will Grandma Dress Up Like?
Whom Has Grandma Turned to for Advice?

It doesn’t matter that the object of for in the first example is unstated or that the object of to in the third example comes first. A preposition is a preposition (except when it’s not).

__________

* The entry in the OED for “up (adv. 1),” sense II.18.c, cross-references several verbs that form phrasal verbs with up, including dress.

Q. Good morning! Are syndicated newspaper articles marked as such in footnotes? It seems somewhat misleading to refer simply to an article in, say, The Indianapolis Star, when it was published in papers around the country and I just happened to see it in the Star because that’s the database to which I have access. I have periodically searched for the answer to this question in the Q&A and haven’t seen one. Please let me know your thoughts, thanks!

A. Though Chicago doesn’t currently require you to include information about syndication, you can always provide additional context for a cited source beyond the bare citation. If the article that you’re citing has been distributed via syndication to other publications—and you think readers should know this—then feel free to say so, either in your text (where you could simply refer to “the syndicated article” when you introduce it) or as commentary following your citation in a note (as in CMOS 13.40).

If you do mention syndication, consider citing an additional source that would confirm this, unless that information appears with the article (in which case your Star citation will do double duty).

Q. Hello, I’m struggling with source links. Chicago allows stable links from databases like JSTOR, but on the other hand it sometimes recommends listing JSTOR instead of a link. It also allows Google Books and Archive.org links. But are all these links only recommended if they offer a full view of the source? And what about links to a book landing page from the publisher, such as Routledge or Chicago? Are those useful? Finally, if a link does not match the edition or format of the source cited, can it still be used? I typically delete links that don’t pass this test because I worry about copyright issues and inaccuracy. Am I being too strict? Thank you so much for your help!

A. Some answers, assuming you’re talking about source citations:

1. Though we would allow listing “JSTOR” in place of a URL, it’s not a recommendation. The “stable” URLs offered for articles at JSTOR tend to be relatively short and easy to decipher (“https://www.jstor.org/stable/” plus a number), so there’s usually no reason not to include them in your citations. See CMOS 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10.
2. You could cite a copyright-restricted book or other source that you consulted in a limited preview at Google Books or Archive.org. But it would be better to find a complete copy of the source elsewhere (in whatever format) and cite that instead; you may have missed something in your review of the partial source.
3. A URL for a publisher’s book page isn’t normally all that useful in a citation; those pages are essentially advertisements for the book and places to buy it. Likewise, there’s no need to include a link to the Amazon page for a book purchased there or to list a URL that points to a book’s entry in an online library catalog.
4. Including a URL that doesn’t lead to the edition or format of the cited source isn’t normally necessary. But you can include such a URL if you think it will help readers who might otherwise not find the source; in that case, preface it with “also available at” or the like. See also CMOS 13.14.
5. Though you shouldn’t publish a URL that provides unauthorized access to a work under copyright, the scenarios you’ve mentioned all seem to involve citing legitimate copies (or partial copies) of a work. If you’re concerned, consider getting legal advice.

A URL is a convenience intended to lead readers directly to a source that you’ve consulted and that’s otherwise been cited in full (such that a URL wouldn’t be needed to locate it). URLs that don’t lead to the full source, or that aren’t reasonably short, can usually be omitted.