Q. If court testimony is being quoted and the speaker does not often use correct grammar (repeats words, speaks in sentence
fragments or sentences that don’t logically follow, etc.), is it okay to change it extensively and use
brackets to indicate the changes? Would a general disclaimer work?
A. It depends on your purpose. As a rule, court testimony must be rendered as spoken (as far as possible), because users require
it to be accurate, not laundered through the preferences and judgments of an editor. In work that’s
not legal or scholarly you can take more liberties (with a disclaimer), although if your changes are that extensive, paraphrases
would probably be more elegant and readable.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My question is regarding page numbers in references. If we have pages ranging from 315 to 317, it is my understanding this
should read as 315–7. Now let’s say a journal article is from pages 310 to 319.
Does it matter that there is a zero in the beginning page number? Is the proper format 310–9 or 310–19?
Someone has informed me that if a zero occurs in the beginning page, we must skip a number back in the ending page. That would
mean 310–19, rather than 310–9.
A. There are several ways to condense inclusive numbers. Chicago’s preferred method renders your ranges
315–17 and 310–19 (using en dashes), but one of two alternative methods that we
describe would include only the changed part: 315–7 and 310–9. (The other alternative
is to include all digits.) This method, though economical, is not as easy to interpret as Chicago’s
preferred method. Please see the table in the numbers chapter of CMOS for instructions.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a collection of poems. My poet is inclined to use ellipses and em dashes extensively and incorrectly. I argued
that this will detract from the manuscript and be distracting for readers. She argued that it’s a style
thing and I shouldn’t change it. Who is right? Does the poet get complete license?
A. Poets do tend to resist editing—they’re so sure that everything they do is inspired
by genius. Fortunately, readers tend to buy into this. Your role is just to query and then let it go.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. For Chicago style, is there a mandate on whether a paper clip or staple should be used?
A. In manuscript preparation, paper clips work well; binder clips and rubber bands are ideal. Such WMDs as staples should never
be used. Never. If one lands on your desk, it should be dismantled immediately. [SAFETY ALERT: Proceed with caution. May
result in torn documents and/or personal injury unless performed by a professional trained in the use of the proper device
(and probably even then).]
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Dear CMOS: My author uses 9/11 as a shorthand to refer to the September 11 attacks. When this is being used in the phrase “post-9/11
world,” wouldn’t an en dash be more appropriate than a hyphen because post has to bridge 9/11, which is shorthand for two words?
A. The purpose of an en dash in connecting a prefix and an open compound is to prevent the prefix from appearing to go with
only the first word of the compound: post-heart surgery diet is less clear than post–heart surgery diet (or post-heart-surgery diet). Because 9/11 is not an open compound, the en dash isn’t necessary for reading comprehension.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, I've tried to grasp the rule on hyphenating a couple of words I'm confronted with; could you please confirm I'm right
in my reasoning: nontoxic (“non-toxic” would look better); nonsmokers (“non-smokers”
would look better); noneicosanoid functions (“non-eicosanoid” would look better;
nonphosphorylated form (“non-phosphorylated” would look better).
A. Clearly, you like the looks of the hyphen, so I'd say go for it, although Chicago style is to close up the prefix in all
those cases.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m seeing this particular use of hyphens: low-to-moderate income families. I don’t
think it’s correct, but it’s becoming so common that I’m
beginning to wonder if I missed something.
A. Chicago style renders this phrase“low- to moderate-income families,” and others
hyphenate it as “low-to-moderate-income families,” but this level of hyphen usage
is subtle enough that it’s not surprising that you don’t find it consistently
applied.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I was not able to find this in CMOS anywhere: how do you hyphenate a word that has both a prefix and a suffix? For example, should “seminationwide”
have any hyphens?
A. In Chicago style, it would not have hyphens. I should point out, however, that such a word might invite further editorial
scrutiny.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should “64 Slice Cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography Program” be hyphenated
“64-Slice”?
Q. Obviously, two adjectives separated by “and” need not be hyphenated, as in “Brackett Omensetter was a wide and happy man.” But how about suspended compound nouns, for example, “city- and state government” or a musician’s “recording- and practice space”? Need the first modifier have a suspended hyphen? I vote hyphen, myself, but I’ve been called to account and could find neither backup nor smackdown in the Chicago Manual.
A. Okay, here’s the smackdown from CMOS: You’re overdoing it. No hyphens. Even if you were to use phrases like those to modify yet another noun, you might well get away without hyphens. You simply have to consider whether the meaning of each phrase would be clear without them: city and state government contracts; recording- and practice-space expenses.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]