Q. I have scoured the internet looking for an answer: How are plurale tantum [plural only] words like “pants,” “scissors,” “sunglasses,” and “manners” constructed using the suffix “-less”? Would it be “pantless” or “pantsless,” “scissorless” or “scissorsless,” and so on? I can find arguments for either construction for each term. I’m hoping there’s a grammar rule (somewhere) that will guide me toward a definitive answer. If the “s” is retained before the suffix, most words become awkward to say the least (“trousersless,” “slacksless,” “shearsless,” etc.). Is it simply arbitrary? Based on popular usage? Something else?

A. We can’t cite a rule, but we know that the suffix “-less” almost always gets added to the singular form of a noun. And we could guess that this fact would influence how “-less” might be added to a word like “pants.”

In other words, if “shoeless” (no shoes), “witless” (no wits), “childless” (no children), and “toothless” (no teeth) are all standard, then “pantless” (no pants) would seem like a reasonable option. And that’s what the OED has (“pantless,” not “pantsless”).

But compared with the standard singular forms “shoe,” “wit,” and so on, “pant” as a singular noun is kind of rare. You might consider ignoring the OED in this case and going with “pantsless” instead.

Some of the other words you mention may work better without the “s.” “Scissorless” and “trouserless” seem OK, maybe because the adjectives of those words are commonly spelled without an “s,” as in scissor kick* and trouser pocket (the adjective form of “pants” more often retains the “s”: pants pocket). And “mannerless” is in Merriam-Webster and the OED.

“Sunglassless” and “sunglassesless,” however, both look like mistakes, and “slack(s)less” and “shear(s)less” also have problems (starting with the fact that slack and shear have multiple meanings). Rewriting would be best (e.g., without sunglasses, slacks, or shears). Or try a hyphen (e.g., “sunglasses-less”).

In sum, approach these terms on a case-by-case basis, and don’t settle for an awkward or ambiguous result.

* Merriam-Webster records only “scissors kick” (as of October 2024), but that spelling has become less common than “scissor kick” in published books in recent years, as this n-gram from Google suggests.

Q. Could CMOS weigh in on the proper placement of punctuation in relation to quotation marks when the quoted material is an abbreviation that will be used in the document? For example: This agreement is entered into between Corporation X and Agency Y, individually “Party,” and collectively, the “Parties.” The typical rules would suggest the above punctuation is correct, but the abbreviations are technically “party” and “parties” (not “party,” and “parties.”). Would these be exceptions?

A. No, those wouldn’t be exceptions. In a style like Chicago’s that puts commas and periods inside closing quotation marks, the punctuation is assumed to belong to the text and not to the quotation. This convention, though it has its drawbacks (your question reveals the main one), has the advantage of allowing commas and periods to stay with the words they follow instead of getting separated by the width of the quotation mark. Consider also that there’s no such thing as a party, or parties. (with the comma or period attached).

For a more detailed look at this convention (and its history relative to the alternative British practice, which does put periods and commas outside closing quotation marks, though not in every context), see “Commas and Periods with Quotation Marks,” at CMOS Shop Talk.

Q. Hi. I have a question regarding the use of the em dash between two independent sentences (as in CMOS 6.91, last example). I understand that the dash can be used in place of a colon when introducing a list; however, when it is used to separate two independent sentences, as a semicolon would be used, it reads as a comma splice (as in your example): “The number of new cases has been declining—last week’s daily average was the lowest since January.” Wouldn’t a semicolon or period be better than an em dash in that example?

A. You’re right that a semicolon or a period might be better than a dash in that example. But we wanted our examples to show that a dash really can be used in place of just about any mark of punctuation. And don’t worry about creating a comma splice—only commas can do that.

It might help to show the same sentence but with parentheses:

The number of new cases has been declining (last week’s daily average was the lowest since January).

If you agree that those parentheses work, then consider that dashes and parentheses are usually interchangeable (though parentheses are not as abrupt as dashes, and they always come in pairs; see also CMOS 6.101).

But that doesn’t mean anything goes. Because dashes are so flexible, they tend to be overused. When in doubt, edit them out.

Q. Several years ago, radio station WBUR in Boston began crediting its listeners with the words “brought to you by the listeners OF WBUR.” I have found it most disturbing and would appreciate it if CMOS were to dive into this controversy. Longman Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs does not address this since the example is of a noun form of a verb. Thank you.

A. Whereas it’s true that we listen to something, never of, that doesn’t mean we can’t be listeners of whatever it is we’re listening to. The form “listeners to” might even be an example of hypercorrection—that is, a pairing of “to” with “listeners” may stem from a mistaken idea that a noun must be used in the same way as any corresponding verb. The phrase “listeners of WBUR” simply means “WBUR’s listeners” (see CMOS 5.23).

That said, both pairings are common (as this n-gram from Google Books suggests), and we’d be inclined to accept either one. In WBUR’s defense, however, that of in the example you quote is arguably the better choice; “brought to you by the listeners to WBUR” might be misheard, however fleetingly, as meaning that listeners are bringing something to WBUR. They are, but that’s not the intended meaning of those words.

Q. Should the names of childhood games be capitalized in prose? For example, kick the can, ghost in the graveyard, and so on. These games are not listed in Merriam-Webster, so my initial thought is to leave them lowercase, but I’d love to hear what you think!

A. Capitalization is usually reserved for brand names, so your initial thought to use lowercase for the names of generic children’s games like kick the can and ghost in the graveyard (or tag or follow the leader or tic-tac-toe, etc.) aligns with what we’d recommend (see CMOS 8.192).

Q. Does CMOS have a preference on “said” versus “stated” for attribution?

A. “Said” is more neutral than “stated” and would be the better choice in almost any context; “stated” is more definitive and sounds more formal. As a general principle, if any verb other than “said” is used, make sure it suits the context. For example, “wrote” could work for a written source, and “claimed” might be the right choice for something either written or said that hasn’t been verified (or that may be false). But try not to use a word like “sighed” that isn’t compatible with speech (see CMOS 12.41).

Q. If an author insists on using a widely attributed quote whose source cannot be confirmed, how should I cite it? Should I cite it at all? Or should I simply note in the running text that the quote is “widely attributed to such and such”?

A. Your last idea is the best one. In general, if the source of a quotation can’t be confirmed, this fact should be stated in the text that introduces it instead of being relegated to a note, where readers might miss it. The phrase “widely attributed” should make it clear that the attribution isn’t definitive; however, if the author can provide one or more sources that back up this claim, those could be (and in an academic work should be) provided in a note.

Q. I thought Chicago style used to say to use only an apostrophe for the possessive of a name like “Harris” that ends in “s.” Am I imagining things?

A. You’re not imagining things, but Harris’ hasn’t been Chicago style since the late 1960s. The first edition of CMOS (1906) advised using an apostrophe alone to form the possessive of “proper names of more than one syllable ending in s or another sibilant”; for one-syllable names, the rule was the same as for names that didn’t end in a sibilant—that is, add an apostrophe plus an s. In other words, you would write “King James’s Version,” “Burns’s poems,” and “Marx’s theories” (one-syllable names), but “Moses’ law,” “Demosthenes’ orations,” and “Berlioz’ compositions” (names with two or more syllables, a category that Harris belongs to). See paragraph 103 in the first edition.

Except for a couple of clarifications for names like Charlevoix and Horace (both of which would get an ’s), the original rule remained in place until 1969, when the twelfth edition was published. That edition eliminated all but a few exceptions to the ’s convention: “Exceptions are the names Jesus and Moses and Greek (or hellenized) names of more than one syllable ending in es”—as in “Jesus’ nativity,” “Moses’ leadership,” and “Xerxes’ army” (12th ed., ¶ 6.8).

The sixteenth edition (2010) then eliminated all remaining exceptions (including one for names ending in a silent s that had been added to the fifteenth edition [2003]), and that’s where CMOS stands today—that is, add an apostrophe plus an s to form the possessive of any person’s name, regardless of number of syllables or ancient pedigree.

So whether you’re referring to “Moses’s leadership” or (to bring things up to date) “Harris’s speech”—or, yes, “Walz’s speech,” though single-syllable names ending in z were never in question—Chicago’s rule for forming the possessive of a person’s name is now the same for all.

For more details, start with CMOS 7.17.

Q. CMOS 5.201 says that “compare with” should be used for literal comparisons and “compare to” for poetic or metaphorical comparisons. Does the same rule apply to “comparable”? My organization enforces “comparable with” because we follow CMOS and publish material that’s not remotely poetic. “With” sounds odd to me, though; Google Books Ngram shows that “comparable to” is used more than six times as often, and it’s been the more popular variant for almost 100 years [that’s true when British English is considered together with American English; in British English, “comparable with” was the more popular form until the mid-1970s.—CMOS editor]. Can I make a case for sticking with “comparable to”?

A. Yes, you can pair “comparable” with “to” rather than “with.” First, note that “compare” is included not only in the list at paragraph 5.201 (which covers words and the prepositions they’re paired with); it’s also covered in the usage glossary under CMOS 5.254, which has this to say: “To compare with is to discern both similarities and differences between things. To compare to is to liken things or to note primarily similarities between them, especially in the active voice.” The example often cited as evidence of the latter is a line from Shakespeare: “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” (Sonnet 18).

But “comparable” generally means “similar,” and it’s not a verb (so it can’t be said to be in the active voice). Even when it means “capable of or suitable for comparison” (the older sense of the word, as recorded in Merriam-Webster), it still carries the sense of likeness. True, there was a clear preference for most of the twentieth century in British English for the phrase “is not comparable with” (for things that are not alike), but for whatever reason (maybe that wording is too far removed from Shakespeare?), that’s not the case anymore.

Q. Is it JD Vance or J.D.? I’m having a dispute with an editor who claims to follow Chicago style and she insists on J.D.

A. In Chicago style, initials in a person’s name normally get periods; a nonbreaking space separates consecutive initials. Accordingly, our style would be “J. D. Vance”—as in a bibliography entry for the book Hillbilly Elegy, where the author’s name would be inverted: “Vance, J. D.” We’d add that space even though “J.D. Vance,” with periods but no space, is how the name is credited in that book (as in the 2016 Harper edition). (Unspaced initials with periods is a common style, though published books seem more likely to follow Chicago style, as this n-gram from Google comparing “T. S. Eliot” with “T.S. Eliot” suggests.)

But when initials are used alone, Chicago style says to use no spaces or periods, as in FDR (for Franklin Delano Roosevelt). And we make other exceptions—for example, for pen names (as in H.D., with periods but no spaces, for the poet Hilda Doolittle) or stage names (as in LL Cool J, no periods or spaces). So if Vance himself prefers “JD Vance” (i.e., without periods or spaces), as this Wall Street Journal article from July 17, 2024, suggests, then it’s OK to use that form, at least for mentions in the text. In a bibliography or reference list, on the other hand, you could follow Chicago style, assuming the cited sources themselves include periods (see also CMOS 13.75).

For more details, see CMOS 10.4 and 10.14.

Q. Is it acceptable to hyphenate an approximate measurement? Here are some examples: “I boxed up two-hundred-something widgets.” “It will take five-or-so days to complete.” “I need two-and-a-half months for a project of that scope.” (A half month is not a specific number of days.) Thank you for your help!

A. Hyphenation isn’t normally related to how exact a measurement might be. In your three examples, we’d apply no hyphens but one en dash (for the widgets):

I boxed up two hundred–something widgets.

It will take five or so days to complete.

I need two and a half months for a project of that scope.

According to Merriam-Webster, the word something in the sense you’ve used it—“some indeterminate amount more than a specified number”—is a combining form that connects to other words with a hyphen, as in “twenty-something years old.” When joined to the open compound “two hundred,” it gets an en dash in Chicago style (see CMOS 6.86). The other expressions of approximation in the examples above—“or so” and “and a half”—are ordinary phrases that don’t require hyphens.

Q. If a word is used as a word but presented in all caps (or small caps), should it still be italicized or set in quotation marks (per CMOS 7.66)? For example: Fill in the squares with the letters that spell out BINGO. Or: Fill in the squares with the letters B, I, N, G, and O. In the latter case, the letters would be italicized. But putting the letters and the word in all caps and also italicizing them feels like overkill to me. It looks hideous. HELP!

A. Don’t worry, your editorial instincts align with ours. Capital letters, like italics and quotation marks, are very good at distinguishing a letter, word, or phrase from its surroundings. So unless you’re quoting from a specific source, please feel free to refer to the letters in bingo exactly as you’ve done in your question (both individually and when combined to form a word). Such an exception would be similar to the ones for the letter grades A–F (see CMOS 7.68) and the expression “the three R’s” (note the apostrophe; see 7.15 in the 18th ed. of CMOS).

Q. I often check dates and times for accuracy and have come across this question multiple times. If it is midnight, does that time belong to the day that is ending or the day that is beginning? For example, if it is 11:59 p.m. on April 12, and then it turns to be 12:00 a.m., should that 12:00 a.m. be noted as being on April 12? or April 13? I’ve seen it done both ways. Thanks!

A. You’re right: We can’t really know what day 12:00 a.m. refers to. So unless it’s clear from context, it’s best to specify both, as in 12:00 a.m., April 12–13—or, better yet, midnight, April 12–13. Because even though 12:00 a.m. is usually understood to mean midnight and 12:00 p.m. noon, both of those expressions are potentially ambiguous, at least outside of calendar apps and the like (see CMOS 9.40).

The twenty-four-hour system has a slight advantage here, but you still need two separate numbers. In that system, midnight on April 12 would be expressed as 2400 hours, whereas the beginning of April 13 would be 0000 hours. Those times are identical, but the numbers used to express them—and the dates they refer to—are different. See also CMOS 9.41.

Q. If a sentence includes quotations from different pages which are out of order (say a quotation from page 11 and then a quotation from page 3), should the citation in the footnote list the pages chronologically or in the order in which the quoted material appeared in the sentence?

A. The order of specific page number references in a footnote should correspond to the sequence of quotations in the sentence. The logic is the same as it is for multiple references to different sources in the same note, which, according to CMOS 13.61, “must appear in the same order as the text material (whether works, quotations, or whatever) to which they pertain.” But multiple sources in a note are usually separated by semicolons; multiple page numbers, unless they’re expressed as a range, are usually separated by commas (as shown in 13.22).