Fun with the Chicago Manual of Style
February 27, 2024 | Shannon Winton
Hello Authors!
One of the fun things we like to do here at Tomeworks is go through the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) Q&A to determine how their updates impact our editing world. If you’re new to editing/writing fiction, CMOS is the style guide of choice for most fiction published in the United States. They sporadically release answers to burning questions submitted to them to clarify copy-editing rules. Here are some of our favorites from late 2023. We hope these help you get your writing right the first time around.
Question 1
Dear CMOS! I have a grammar question that has thrown our small department into a tizzy. In a sentence like “There are an even number of kittens on the veranda,” we are evenly split (pun intended!) as to whether “There are” is correct since there are a plural number of kittens or “There is” is correct because the number is (see? “is”) even. We’ve checked Garner’s entry for “number of,” which seems to throw down in favor of “there are,” but those of us in the “there is” contingent aren’t convinced. Any light the CMOS team can shed on this?
-
The expression “a number of” is an idiomatic phrase that means “some” or “several,” which is why a plural verb would normally be expected after “a number of kittens” used by itself: A number of kittens [or Some kittens] are on the veranda—or, if you invert the sentence, There are a number of kittens [or some kittens] on the veranda.
But if you change a to the, the idiom goes away, and the focus switches to the word number itself, making a singular verb the correct choice: The number of kittens on the veranda is huge. If you then invert that, however, you’re back to the plural: A huge number of kittens are on the veranda. So far, we’re mostly in line with Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (2022), under “number of.”
But huge in that inverted example keeps things idiomatically plural: A huge number of kittens simply means lots of kittens, an expression that requires a plural verb. An even number, by contrast, means just what it says: a number that’s even instead of odd. And though it isn’t one of the examples featured in Garner, an even number doesn’t seem to have an obvious plural idiomatic equivalent like some or lots that could replace it; therefore, a singular verb is arguably the better choice: There is an even number of kittens on the veranda.
In other words, the number of kittens on the veranda is even (🐈🐈🐈🐈) rather than odd (🐈🐈🐈), an observation that puts the number ahead of the kittens. Nothing is certain when it comes to kittens, but that’s our take.
Tomeworks’ Answer
This is a question that absolutely splits hairs, and although we’re going to approach the rule in a different way than CMOS did, we’re still going to come to the same conclusion. First, let’s translate this into a speculative fiction sentence:
There were an unusual number of zombies on the lawn—unusual being any zombies at all.
What it comes down to is whether the idiom “a number of” remains intact. What’s an idiom? According to Merriam-Webster (MW), an idiom is “an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way).” The idiom “a number of” means several or more than one.
So, does this sentence hold the idiom together, or does the flow of words have a different meaning than just some? To figure that out, we need to focus on the adjective. If it’s emphasizing an aspect of the word number, it’s singular. If it emphasizes the quantity of the objects (kittens, zombies, whatever) then it’s plural because it still means what the idiom means: several or at least more than one. Therefore, in our example, it should be “there was an unusual number of zombies on the lawn.”
A rule of thumb is if you can replace “a number of” with “a lot of” or “a few” without impacting the voice of the sentence, it’s plural. If you can’t do that without missing key information, it’s singular. Here are a few other examples to chew on:
A small number of werewolves were patrolling the fences of the summer camp, and the vampire knew they were no match for him.
If “a small number” was replaced with “a few,” this looks pretty much the same.
A conspicuous number of werewolves was patrolling the fences of the summer camp, and the vampire growled in the back at his throat at their lunacy.
If you try to change “conspicuous number” to a lot or a few, nuance is lost. That’s because what is conspicuous isn’t the werewolves themselves, but the sheer number of them, making them that much more likely to be seen or caught. In this case, the focus is just the word number, which is a singular noun.
Pedantic, right? Confusing, right? But wait, there’s more!
Question 2
Does Chicago prefer “whosever” or “whoever’s”?
-
We’d follow the advice in Garner’s Modern English Usage, 5th ed. (2022): “Whosever is the traditionally correct form, but it’s very much on the wane. Whoever’s is now the preferred colloquial form” (see the entry “whoever; whomever: B. Possessive Forms”).
In other words, practically nobody uses whosever anymore, so you’re better off with whoever’s, at least in contexts that are less than formal. For example, Whoever’s [not Whosever] car is parked on the sidewalk needs to move it.
If the context is formal, however, you should probably avoid this awkward construction. Whoever is responsible for editing your prose [not Whoever’s job it is to edit your prose, and not Whosever job it is to edit your prose] will thank you, whoever you might be.
Tomeworks’ Answer
Although whosever is correct, common usage favors whoever's instead. There’s no exact right answer because English is a living language, but in most instances, stick with whoever’s.
Example:
Whoever's kaiju shit on the sidewalk needs to clean it up before people start walking into traffic to avoid the fifteen-foot-wide turds.
However, if you're writing formally or are writing dialogue or narration from a formal character, use whosever.
"Tut tut. Whosever naked earthling this is should be ashamed of demeaning our intergalactic dinner party with such a gaudy human. Why, their flesh is only made of pure gold. Ho hum, how drearily common!"
Question 3
Dear CMOS, Would you say “in the artist’s more than fifty-year career” or “in the artist’s more-than-fifty-year career”?
-
Though it’s rarely wrong to hyphenate a compound modifier before the noun it modifies (see CMOS 7.85), we like your first version best. According to the hyphenation table at CMOS 7.89, section 2, under “adverb not ending in ly + participle or adjective,” such compounds are usually hyphenated (e.g., “a much-needed addition”), but there are exceptions.
Specifically, a compound modifier with more, most, less, least, or very (among a few other adverbs) can usually be left open (e.g., “a more thorough exam”). Accordingly, if you treat the idiomatic phrase more than as a variation of the adverb more and fifty-year as a compound adjective (see “number + noun” in section 1 of the table), you’d write “more than fifty-year career.”
Tomeworks’ Answer
Oh CMOS, you’ve opened a can of worms for the average writer with this one.
Compound modifiers are extremely tricky, and there are a number of rules (there’s that idiom again) that govern them. We’re going to go through as many as we can and hope that you, dear author, can follow along.
Rule 1: Don’t hyphenate “ly” adverbs. You can be chased by a slowly lumbering zombie, but you shouldn’t be chased by a slowly-lumbering one, because that just looks silly.
Confusing caveat: Some adjectives/nouns/compound modifiers do end in “ly” and should be hyphenated.
The botfly-looking alien patted Sere’s hand, and she instantly recoiled.
“That holy-ghost motherfucker better not try to slip his haloed dingdong in my hoo-ha, or I’m gonna smite the bitch.”
In both these instances, even though both words end in “ly,” they don’t stand alone in the sentence and need to be connected with their other modifier with a hyphen.
Rule 2: You should hyphenate compound modifiers when they come before a noun but not after.
Her sky-blue third eye stared right through him.
Her third eye was sky blue and stared right through him.
Confusing caveat: If the adjective in question is written with a hyphen in its definition in MW, it keeps the hyphen no matter where it is in a sentence.
The short-term repo job was only supposed to last long enough to pay for JayJay’s bionic liver.
Because “short-term” is the appropriate spelling per MW, I would keep the hyphen after the noun too.
JayJay planned to pay for his bionic liver by doing the repo job short-term.
Rule 3: If the meaning is crystal clear without a hyphen, a hyphen is not necessary.
However, after that, it can get tricky. Some adverbs are obvious in what they’re modifying and don’t need a hyphen. These include some degree adverbs like “most, more, less, least, and very,” which can’t be confused for adjectives. For example, you cannot be a “very werewolf,” but you can be a “very hairy werewolf.” You can’t be a “most devil,” but you can be a “most handsome devil.” There’s no risk of confusing “very” and “most” for directly modifying the noun.
With other adverbs, if you were to remove the adjective, the adverb could be confused for an adjective modifying the noun. For example, a well-traveled mermaid without “traveled” would be a “well mermaid,” which reads as a mermaid in good health. Therefore, the hyphen is earned. Another example is “the best-tasting bloodbag in all of Dollywood.” Without the hyphen, it could be read that the bloodbag is the best in all aspects like longevity, or it could mean that bloodbag has the most refined sense of taste out of all the bloodbags in Tennessee, or it could just mean that this bloodbag tastes the best. Yum yum! It earns that hyphen.
To make this even more confusing, if you have an idiom as part of your series, there should not be hyphenation of that idiom. If you have a vampire who has lived over a thousand years, it would be “a more than thousand-year lifespan.” Because “more than” is an idiom, it doesn’t get hyphenated.
Are your eyes burning yet? Do you feel like idioms are waiting in a dark alley to beat your grammar down on a moonlit night? Do you need a brave and daring copy editor to defend you and your manuscript? Tomeworks editors have the tools you need to keep your idioms at bay and your words polished to a shine. Contact Tomeworks now for a Copy Edit!