![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Every month the Chicago Manual of Style publishes a selection of questions and answers on style and usage. Usually the subject matter is primarily of interest to working editors (the hyphenation of open compounds, how to cite a dictionary entry in author-date style, how to style the possessive of a plural acronym, etc.)--not the type of thing an author is likely to notice or care about. Sometimes, though, an entry is of more general interest.
( Read more... )
I've had to develop a boilerplate explanation and links for this type of solecism (and for many others) that I routinely append to edited manuscripts, which usually does the trick, at least for my professional authors. (The non-professional writers of fiction, who either don't believe or weren't taught that the objective case still exists in English, are another story.) Now that CMOS has addressed the point succinctly, I'm glad to be able to add another link to the explanation. However, I'm pretty sure that the hope of the CMOS editors, expressed in the subject line above, is in vain.
( Read more... )
I've had to develop a boilerplate explanation and links for this type of solecism (and for many others) that I routinely append to edited manuscripts, which usually does the trick, at least for my professional authors. (The non-professional writers of fiction, who either don't believe or weren't taught that the objective case still exists in English, are another story.) Now that CMOS has addressed the point succinctly, I'm glad to be able to add another link to the explanation. However, I'm pretty sure that the hope of the CMOS editors, expressed in the subject line above, is in vain.
