- #CANNOT ONE WORD CHICAGO STYLE MANUAL MANUAL#
- #CANNOT ONE WORD CHICAGO STYLE MANUAL FULL#
- #CANNOT ONE WORD CHICAGO STYLE MANUAL SERIES#
Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (New York: Vintage Books, 1994). In a numbered note you would use “trans.”-but standing for the verb form “translated by”:ġ. The plural of “trans.” would be “trans.” But because authors or editors rather than translators are generally listed first in citations of translated works, it would almost never come up in a source citation. The abbreviation of the plural “editors” is “eds.” But what is the abbreviation of plural “translators”? “Trans.” or “transs.”?Ī. In reference lists, noun forms such as “editor” (ed.) and “translator” (trans.) are always abbreviated. Likewise, though “ibid.” means “in the same place,” there’s nothing wrong with writing, for example, “referred to in ibid.” (but see CMOS 14.34, which discusses alternatives to “ibid.”). It’s perfectly fine to write “in AD 2020” (despite any apparent redundancy). But Latin antecedents can take you only so far in English. Putting “AD” before the year in “AD 30” and “AD 30–35” and the like (as described in CMOS 9.34) does try to accommodate the Latin phrase behind the abbreviation (one would write “in the year 30,” not “30 in the year”). When a span of years is expressed in the form of a decade, a century, or a millennium, it can safely precede rather than follow “AD.” So write “AD 30” but “the 30s AD” (or “the thirties AD” see CMOS 9.33), “the second century AD,” “the first millennium AD,” and so forth. First, is it acceptable to leave the abbreviation after the year when it refers to a decade, as in “the 30s AD” (referring to the fourth decade)? Or should that be “the AD 30s”? Second, since AD literally means “in the year of the Lord,” should we avoid saying “in AD 60,” etc., just as we avoid saying “in ibid.”?Ī. I have two questions about the use of AD (anno Domini).
#CANNOT ONE WORD CHICAGO STYLE MANUAL SERIES#
(Note that CMOS uses “initialism” for an abbreviation pronounced as a series of letters, like “HHS,” and “acronym” when it is pronounced as a word, like “NASA.”) To take a similar example, one would write “the United States’ allies” (following the rules for forming the possessive of a noun that’s plural in form but singular in meaning see CMOS 7.20) but, using the initialism, “the US’s allies.” Likewise, it would be correct to write “the Department of Health and Human Services’ commitment” but “HHS’s commitment.” Treat an initialism like “HHS” as singular regardless of whether it has a plural or a singular antecedent. The acronym in question is “HHS,” for (Department of) “Health and Human Services.” In the following sentence fragment, should one write HHS’s or HHS’?: “There was no better test of commitment to its mission than.
#CANNOT ONE WORD CHICAGO STYLE MANUAL FULL#
I have a question about the possessive of a plural acronym, but where the plural is only evident in the term’s full name, not the acronym. If you’re a copyeditor, you might choose to enforce the distinction in formal prose but not necessarily in fictional dialogue and the like. “compare this with” (and the like) shows a similar trend. We’re not at all the same.”įor what it’s worth, the “to/with” distinction seems to be fading, as this Google Ngram comparing the frequency of “compared with” with that of “compared to” in books published in English since 1800 suggests (showing “to” overtaking “with” in the mid-1980s-a reversal that happened in the mid-1970s in American English but thirty years later in British English):Īdjusting the terms to “compare to” vs.
This type of comparison-with “to” rather than “with”-is useful for suggesting similarities of any kind: “Please don’t compare me to him. In a poetic or metaphorical comparison, the point is to note similarities between things that are not necessarily similar-as in Shakespeare’s “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” People and summer days aren’t literally alike figuratively, however, it’s a different story (e.g., they might both be “lovely” or “temperate”).
#CANNOT ONE WORD CHICAGO STYLE MANUAL MANUAL#
We might also, for example, compare The Chicago Manual of Style with the AP Stylebook. A literal comparison examines two things relative to each other in a process that might turn up both similarities and differences (but often with an emphasis on the differences) you’ve demonstrated this usage in your question (“how does it compare with. What is a “literal comparison,” and how does it compare with a “poetic or metaphorical comparison”?Ī.
CMOS 5.195 says that “compare with” is for literal comparisons and “compare to” for poetic or metaphorical comparisons.
0 kommentar(er)
