Q. In text, I write: “. . . a book titled, ABC Book.” But should I use the word “titled” or “entitled” in front of the title? Also, should the title be preceded by a comma, as I’ve done here? I’ve always included the comma, but that may not be correct. Please help. Thanks!

A. Both titled and entitled are correct, and in this context they mean the same thing. Normally, you can use titled—that is, unless you’re feeling entitled (the other meaning of that word) to use the slightly fancier-sounding entitled.

But omit the comma before the book title. Many writers assume that a comma is needed before the title of any book or other work mentioned mid-sentence, probably because the words in italics or quotation marks resemble quoted writing or speech. In other words, titled (or entitled) is often treated (incorrectly) like said would be.

Instead, you should save your commas for direct quotations introduced like the one in the third example below (but not the fourth one; see also CMOS 12.14):

I just started writing a book titled ABC Book.

and

The first chapter is called “It’s Now or Never.”

but

My publisher said, “It’s now or never.”

or

My publisher said that “it’s now or never.”

Q. While The Chicago Manual of Style still supports a no-hyphen version of “up to date” when not before a noun, Merriam-Webster appears to support using hyphens in all cases. I am not sure which to advise my clients to use.

A. When Merriam-Webster and CMOS disagree relative to hyphenation, follow CMOS. Because CMOS says specifically that “up to date” remains open after a noun—an up-to-date solution but his equipment was up to date (see the hyphenation guide at CMOS 7.96, under “phrases, adjectival”)—that’s what you should advise.

Keep in mind that Chicago favors a spare hyphenation style. What this often means in practice is that any compound adjective that follows the noun it modifies (i.e., instead of directly preceding it) can usually be left open. There are only a few adjective phrases that retain hyphens in any position—among them all-consuming and high-spirited—as described in CMOS 7.92.

But those are exceptions. In general, documents that include relatively few hyphens in compound adjectives after a noun will be the ones that are the most up to date as far as Chicago style is concerned (up to and including the 18th edition).

Q. I’m proofreading a manuscript in which a lot of dialogue tags are followed with descriptive verb phrases. But instead of using gerunds to do this (“I like cats,” he said, smiling), the author opts nine times out of ten to use a conjunction (“I like cats,” he said and smiled). In most of these cases, my instinct is to put a comma after the dialogue tag, but I’m unable to find any CMOS rule that applies to this specific instance.

A. A comma in your second example isn’t strictly required; the word “and” introduces the second half of a compound predicate (“smiled”), which is easier to see if you reorganize your example and replace the quoted dialogue with an indefinite pronoun:

He said something and smiled.

But the transition from speaking verb (“said”) to action verb (“smiled”) in the original version of the example is a little abrupt, and we agree with your instinct that a comma after “said” would be helpful:

“I like cats,” he said, and smiled.

For a similar take on this issue, see Amy J. Schneider’s The Chicago Guide to Copyediting Fiction (University of Chicago Press, 2023), 163–64. See also CMOS 6.24 (on commas with compound predicates) and 12.41 (on punctuation with speaker tags).

Q. I’m proofreading a book that was previously published in the UK for forthcoming US publication. The hyphenation of “century” compounds using BCE/CE preceding a noun is inconsistent throughout. Examples: “A first-century-CE graffito from a wall in Pompeii”; “A second-century BCE satire.” My inclination, guided by CMOS 7.94 (on multiple hyphens), is to follow the second example, without a hyphen before BCE/CE, which is also how the UK edition was styled. I can’t seem to find any CMOS guidance that specifically addresses this issue, though. Is my inclination sound? Many thanks for any help.

A. We agree with your inclination, which also happens to be supported by Chicago’s recommendation to omit hyphens in compound modifiers consisting of a number plus an abbreviation, as in the 33 m distance (see CMOS 7.96, sec. 1, under “number + abbreviation”). That example isn’t perfectly analogous to a first-century CE graffito, but it’s close enough.

Q. Regarding professional titles (e.g., “chef”) that appear before a person’s name in running copy, it’s not clear when such titles should be initial capped. In CMOS 8.20, Chicago indicates that “professional titles are capitalized when they immediately precede a personal name and are thus used as part of the name (traditionally replacing the title holder’s first name).” But in 8.31, Chicago writes, “When preceding a name, generic titles that describe a person’s role or occupation—such as philosopher or historian—are normally lowercased.” So my question is, Do you have any guidance for distinguishing between a “professional title” and “generic titles that describe a person’s role or occupation”? It would seem that this is a contradiction in Chicago, but perhaps I’m missing something? Any input on this issue would be greatly appreciated!

A. The difference between a professional title and a job description won’t always be crystal clear. If you’re unsure about a particular term not covered in CMOS, try looking up usage for someone famous and using that as your model.

For example, would you refer to “Chef Julia Child,” with a capital C in Chef, and by extension to “Chef Child”? This n-gram from Google Books suggests that this choice would be an outlier. And it’s not how Child and other professional chefs are referred to in the book Appetite for Life, the authorized biography of Child by Noël Riley Fitch (Anchor Books, 1999). Instead, modeling the usage in that book—which refers, for example, to “the teaching of chef Pierre Mangelotte” (181)—you’d refer to chef Julia Child or to Julia Child, the chef (but never to “Chef Child”).

Still, if you wanted to call a particular character “Chef Smith” in a novel or story, that could work well, assuming that’s how the character would be addressed by others (in the manner of a doctor or a coach; see CMOS 8.37). And there may be some real-life chefs who insist on the same—as well as some books that apply the initial capital. But lowercase for chef seems like the more appropriate choice in most cases.

Words for other types of jobs can be investigated in the same way. If your efforts fail to yield a clear choice, go with lowercase.

[Editor’s update: As one of our readers has pointed out to us, Julia Child may often be referred to as a chef, but she was not a chef in the strictest sense of that term, in which a chef is someone who has run a kitchen in a restaurant or similar organization. Such a professional would include, for example, the chef José Andrés, who is often referred to as Chef José Andrés or Chef Andrés, where “Chef” is considered to be his title. Our advice above should have included this distinction.]

Q. In the headline “Rack ’em Up and Play,” would Chicago support ’em or ’Em? (It’s for an article about a billiards-themed mobile game. We follow Chicago, so our headlines are always in title case. And we have a casual style, hence the contraction.) I’m consumed by indecision. On the one hand, ’Em is technically a pronoun, standing in for Them, and pronouns regardless of length are capitalized in headlines. On the other, I get stuck on the fact that the initial letter of the full word is what would be capitalized, and that initial letter is removed by the contraction. No initial letter, no capital? Aesthetically the lowercase option looks better to me, but other colleagues have said lowercase looks like a mistake to them. Help!

A. Our vote would be to apply an initial capital: Rack ’Em Up and Play. The similar contraction ’twas is usually written ’Twas at the beginning of a sentence (as in the opening line of that famous nineteenth-century American poem: ’Twas the night before Christmas . . .), even though the T in ’Twas would be lowercase if the contraction were to be spelled out (It was . . .). In other words, there’s at least one well-known precedent for ignoring an initial apostrophe for the purposes of capitalization.

Q. How should one cite a published book that is in an archival (personal papers) collection? The most important element of the book is not the text but the annotations added by the person whose collection the book is in. Thanks!

A. Cite the book like any other book; then cite the archive according to the advice and examples in CMOS 14.119–29, prefacing this information with “in” if it immediately follows the book citation (cf. CMOS 13.25).

The goal is to make it clear which book you’re citing and where the copy that has the annotations can be found. The annotations themselves can be discussed anywhere—in your text, in your notes, or in an addendum to a bibliography entry for the book (see CMOS 13.68, item 3)—and you can cite specific page numbers where applicable. But the annotations wouldn’t be cited as a separate entity.

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.