Forum: Author Hangout

As a reader, I appreciate whatever I can easily understand and pronounce. The numerals, to me, are more easily understood than the words - even in dialogue.

first, dialogue is supposed to spoken words

I am well aware of the general practice - as you well know.

Look at the evidence others cite for why a particular case might reasonably be treated as an exception before mouthing off as if they were complete morons.

Just look at this!

'English Fiction' was the option for the language/corpus which I selected.

I would not suggest that "twenty-four seven" is wrong. Also, I know that ngrams results cannot be consider as any more than indicative, and not all uses counted would have been in dialogue. However, this result suggests that over a fifty-year period, in a representative sample of English fiction, the percentage of times that "24/7" was used instead of "twenty-four seven" was 99.999995%
In this case, I would ignore the general rule and follow the crowd.

In this case, I would ignore the general rule and follow the crowd.

How very careless of you! Imagine all the damage and disaster a wrong advice could cause in such a delicate case.

That graph leaves me dazzled. I thought shortcuts like 'lol' are an internet and instant messaging occurrence. Who used such acronyms in 1960?

It was something you might write in a note, meaning 'lots of love'.

I think you're right, and that meaning was more common than bridge players using it to mean 'little old ladies'.

Never mind; everyone feels lots of love for little old ladies.

Fancy a laugh?

Bridge players have used 'lol' for a long time as an acronym for 'little old ladies', typically to warn their partner to be careful of the next pair they would be up against, who were better than they may appear. My guess is that is the prior use that was fading away up until about 1980.

Then say so before you spout off with herd statistics.

No! You should read what others actually before presuming to lecture them on very basic general practices.
Why should I explain the usual practice when CW had already done so in the OP?
My first post stated:

After seeing that, I would have no problem with writing: He said, "We are open 24/7."

That very clearly states the "that" provided a sufficient reason for me to do something I would otherwise have had a problem with.

Furthermore, I stated it was my preference and gave my reasons. I generally try to follow "standard practices" - except when I can see a compelling reason why something non-standard would be better. My assessments may not always be correct, but I will not do something thoughtlessly simply because some Nazi tells me it is a rule which must be obeyed.

But how much of what's in the count is not dialogue?

That doesn't matter if the count for the alternative is effectively zero.

If what you count is 99.99% narrative

Everyone who has ever used ngrams will know only a complete idiot could think that is possible for a count over a period of fifty years and limited to "English Fiction".
It is an argument that you know is complete nonsense, made only because you enjoy being a pain in the arse.

99.999995% of the time "24/7" was favoured.
You suggest perhaps none of those were dialogue? Yeah, that's really believable.

Everybody else, just look at it for yourself

You're the one saying it's the most used, yet you don't provide the breakdown between dialogue and narrative. I gather, from the repeated failure to do so, that you can't. The chances of someone having a numeric value of 24 / 7 in narrative are a great deal higher than them having it in dialogue, but we won't know until you break it down.

I cannot provide a breakdown. I am making a wild guess.
What if only one of a hundred uses of "24/7" are in dialogue? Maybe it's one in a thousand? One in a million? One in TEN MILLION!
The result from ngrams still suggests "24/7" is more common in dialogue than "twenty-four seven".
I do not particularly trust ngrams data, but there does seem to be a wide-enough safety margin on this occasion to hazard a guess about which use is more frequent - in dialogue.

Maybe just plain old "twenty four seven"?

Not that. Ngrams, annoyingly, replaces hyphens in search strings with spaces.

You're the one saying it's the most used, yet you don't provide the breakdown between dialogue and narrative. I gather, from the repeated failure to do so, that you can't. The chances of someone having a numeric value of 24 / 7 in narrative are a great deal higher than them having it in dialogue, but we won't know until you break it down.

Given the extreme preference, dialog would have to comprise less than 0.5 percent of the totality of all the fiction in the entire "English Fiction" corpus before your objection would come anywhere near being valid.

I've just compared 24/7 (46.7%) with 24/6 (43.7%).

I realised the data ngrams was giving unrealisticly high results for "24/7", but I based my opinion mostly on how low "twenty-four seven" was.

I just did the same comparison using "twenty-four" and "twenty-four seven".
Link here
That shows "seven" follows "twenty-four" less than one in five thousand times.
That is still conclusive enough evidence for me.

Wired Magazine has an interesting article titled

"The Pitfalls of Using Google Ngram to Study Language".

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/pitfalls-of-studying-language-with-google-ngram/

Unfortunately, there's NO way to measure narrative over dialogue in an ngram.

You can compare (presumably) dialogue beginning with 'Twenty-four' and 'Twenty-four seven' by putting quotation marks in front of the search strings. Only about one in a thousand of those has 'seven' following 'Twenty-four' - and not one single time from 1951 to 1975!

"24/7" is a very recent phrase

I really don't care, but if this doesn't convince you nothing will.
Look at this

I've written before that dialogue is not truly a transcription; it's written for the eye, not for the text-to-speech software (although the latter is very useful). It has to be parsed by the reader without confusion. I think "24/7", "twenty-four/seven", "24x7", "24 by 7", or "twenty-four by seven" are all clear. "Twenty-four seven" requires a moment of thought, but is still not bad.

I have an unwritten style guide that I use. I am not always consistent with that guide, but it does give me a fluid structure in which to write.

I have recently begun employing written style guides, specific to each work, which are modified and updated as any new choices are made. The initial templates may be similar but they diverge as works progress.
I understand your desire for a "fluid structure" - the same choices may not be appropriate for different works - but this approach does seem to enable both different choices according to specific needs of different works, while still achieving consistency within works.

I can agree and accept that. However, it also begs the question of why we as Forum posters keep looking for and quoting commonly accepted style guides such as CMOS.

BECAUSE, not everything that applies to formal writing is inappropriate for fiction.

I've asked time and again if anyone knows of any reference that is specifically aimed at writers of fiction. I'm not aware of any. If you insist that nobody here quotes any reference containing any elements unsuitable for fiction, we will be left with the blind attempting to lead the blind, and all of us wandering off in different directions. The only practical alternative is to accept that any point quoted here from a style guide needs to be assessed for possible reasons that point may not be suitable for fiction.

The only practical alternative is to accept that any point quoted here from a style guide needs to be assessed for possible reasons that point may not be suitable for fiction.

In my opinion, that's backwards. Who ever quotes a point from a style guide ought to be justifying why it is suitable for fiction.

If you aren't willing to comply with ALL of the rules of a specific style guide, then you shouldn't quote that style guide as the authority of how to write.

What a load of codswallop! If someone states the source they are quoting from, are you incapable of deciding how much credibility to place in that source? And in particular, whether the segment quoted is appropriate for fiction. It's fine if you're not be interesting in what somebody quotes, but that doesn't give you the right to insist others who may be interested are not even entitled to see it.

I've never seen anyone here say "because CMOS says so!"

THANK YOU!

To be more precise, I'm sure I have said here, "I choose this way because CMOS says so," but never, "Others should choose this way because CMOS says so."
My reasons for accepting what that bunch of dictatorial Nazis say is not because I regard them as any kind of authority. They are because:
* In circumstances when various options exist, with no logical reason to favour any particular one, the best way to achieve some level of consistency is by always relying on the same reference; and
* Because it is so ubiquitous, whatever choices CMOS specifies are likely to be the most familiar to readers.

The majority might be based on CMS, but I also found based-ons referring to the AP Style Guide, the NY Times and even the Economist.

Do they differ about anything that really matters to us?

The one difference I am sure exists is that CMOS recommends serial commas and the others do not. The reason is that newspapers are very concerned about minimising their usage of space. By not using serial commas, they will be able to squeeze a few extra words into some articles within the same space allocations. Saving print space really matters to them.

I am aware of some differences between The Economist style guide and New Harts Rules compared to the others, because those two use British English.

Then there is a whole range of formatting and style issues where I expect significant differences exist between style guides - but they should not bother us as authors of fiction. Does it really matter if we use italics for the name of a newspaper but roman for the title of an article from that newspaper? There is no logical reasoning to guide decisions like that. What matters is that we are internally consistent with whatever such choices we make. I prefer to use one guide, it hardly matters which, and becoming familiar with how to look up details as required. It constantly bemuses me when, for questions of this type, I quote what CMOS says and others object because CMOS is not an authoritative source. Well, duh! All of us here already know that! Objections like that only serve to deny others the right to make informed decisions. Some here, like Switch, say they generally follow what CMOS says because they know it will be a choice readers are familiar with.

Then there issues of punctuation and grammar where I expect style guides, those which cover such points, would virtually always agree – but authors of fiction should quite frequently beg to differ!

The guides would all be specifying exactly the same rules, which are required in formal writing, but we know there are frequent situations where it is better for authors to disregard them. I wish we could discuss those types of issues here calmly, i.e. specifically, the when and the why fiction may be made better by disregarding some of the rules of formal writing. But we can never reach that point if whenever someone quotes what those rules are – as the starting point for a discussion – they are howled down with objections the source is not explicitly directed at authors of fiction.

Personally, I loathe the dictatorial tone of CMOS - but it is not intended to be interpreted absolutely literally. When they specify what the "rule" is, they expect it will always be obeyed. Its originator, Strunk, said authors should generally follow the rules – except when they know that doing otherwise is better. CMOS doesn't add that as a caveat to almost every point in the entire tome; it assumes those who use it will exercise some common sense, knowing what it says are recommendations, not inviolate dictates. I guess they didn't envisage how bloody- and narrow-minded authors of fiction could be, and some would interpret any statement not including an explicit list of exceptions as dictates others must obey in all and every possible situation!?

Also, CMOS is not entirely devoted to the needs of formal writing. It contains quite a lot of notes explicitly stating the point being made is not necessarily relevant to informal writing. It does not, however, go a step further to consider needs specific to fiction, which could reasonably be considered a specialised subset of informal writing.

it contains quite a lot of notes explicitly stating the point being made is not necessarily relevant to informal writing.

Informal writing is not the same thing as fiction.

Informal writing is not the same thing as fiction.

Would you consider fiction a subset of informal writing?
I take your point that the last paragraph of my post could be reworded to more specific about what it contains.

Would you consider fiction a subset of informal writing?

Yes, but fiction doesn't even account for the majority of informal writing.

I've revised my post above to reflect the point you made.

To me, informal writing is me writing a letter to a friend.

True, and that is the majority of informal writing, but fiction is certainly not formal writing.

For example:

CMS = twenty-four-year-old.
AP = 24-year-old.

Why the difference? Print space in the newspaper/magazine is expensive so have a style guide that uses less of it. Same for the ellipsis:

CMS = x . . . x
AP = x...x

I doubt print space is the main cause for the difference with the ellipsis. Using the ellipsis sign will save print space, but CMS's preference for ". . ."
is rather caused by typewriters inable to provide the ellipsis sign. Adapting to modern computer writing programs will probably need another one or two decades.

Switch, does CMS really suggest period-space-period-space-period for the ellipsis? May I assume you wrote it this way to enhance the difference between three periods and the ellipsis sign?
If they really propose spaces between the periods, then it's IMO idiotic. Automatical formatting will put line breaks into the ellipsis. To avoid this you have to use the Unicode sign U+2007 instead of a normal space.

HM.

Sorry HM, however bizarre it may be, the answers to your points are 'Nope' and 'Nope'.

The style guides of newspapers are specifically designed to minimise the space used - because of the cost of paper, etc. Before SB made his post, I identified saving space as the reason none of those guides use serial commas.

And yes, CMOS does insist on internal spaces within ellipses. This is from the monster, at 13.48:

If they prefer, authors may prepare their manuscripts using the single-glyph three-dot ellipsis character on their word processors (Unicode 2026), usually with a space on either side; editors following Chicago style will replace these with spaced periods.

That followed a lengthy explanation on how to avoid awkward line breaks within ellipses.

The style guides of newspapers are specifically designed to minimise the space used -

Except in the case where they have to stretch words because there is not enough room for the surrounding words to fit on the same line of a column. :)

The majority of style guides I've seen recommend or mandate figures rather than words for numbers over ten.

AFAIK, most British style guides suggest numerals for numbers beyond ten and American guides for beyond one hundred, but on both continents the guides for newspapers exploit almost every opportunity possible to minimise space.

Is there a trend emerging in what those here think about how CNOS suggests ellipses should be formatted?: HM said idiotic, you perverse, me bizarre, ... barking, WTF?, YGTBKM, ...

Perhaps there is logic behind (it.) I still don't like it though :(

Perhaps there is logic behind it. I still don't like it though :(

without the spaces, the three dots would be horribly scrunched up.

There are times and fonts where I'll insert a space between a lowercase 'f' and a comma or full stop. Without it I get a feeling of Dracula swooping down about to devour the innocent little punctuation mark.

Perhaps there is logic behind CMS's ruling if, without the spaces, the three dots would be horribly scrunched up.

The Chicago Manual of Style is written by the Chicago University Press and it's primary focus is formal academic writing.

The Chicago Manual of Style is written by the Chicago University Press and it's primary focus is formal academic writing.

I disagree that its focus is on academic writing. It has sections covering everything that should be included between the front and back covers of all types of books.
You might be confusing it with the ubiquitous place Strunk's other effort, The Elements of Style, has within American academia. I saw a figure once that it is included in the reading list for 90% of all university courses across the country.

I disagree that its focus is on academic writing.

CMOS was created by the Chicago University Press for use in the academic journals they publish. Disagree all you want it won't change reality.

Actually, the MLA Style Guide is the main one for academic writing.

So what? CMOS is a product of an academic publisher, Chicago University Press, originally created for use primarily in academic books and journals published by the Chicago University Press.

So what? CMOS is a product of an academic publisher, Chicago University Press, originally created for use primarily in academic books and journals published by the Chicago University Press.

Correct, and the key words you got right are "originally created".
The original 200 page version was focused on academic publications but the 1,100 page version now is intended for use for all types of publications.

The original 200 page version was focused on academic publications but the 1,100 page version now is intended for use for all types of publications.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean that academic publishing isn't still the primary focus. If the Chicago University Press switched to an outside style guide for it's own publications, they would likely stop publishing CMOS at all.

If the Chicago University Press switched to an outside style guide for it's own publications, they would likely stop publishing CMOS at all.

I've seen you make a lot of moronic, irrelevant statements here, but that one tops them all.

@DS
If the Chicago University Press switched to an outside style guide for it's own publications, they would likely stop publishing CMOS at all.

@Ross at Play
I've seen you make a lot of moronic, irrelevant statements here, but that one tops them all.

@CW
Now, now, play nice boys. Ross, you just finished saying you wished we could discuss issues without jumping down each other's throats.

CW, that ship sailed long before I gave up on playing nice.

I make no apologies for using sarcasm when someone is repeatedly making statements with no concern for their accuracy: just the latest idea that pops into their head that seemingly supports their argument and has an air of plausibility. When that becomes systemic, I regard it as showing malicious intent and I respond accordingly when it is directed at me.

This exchange with DS has not angered me as some in the past have; it has amused me to see how many blatant falsehoods I could gather by continuing to return every I receive from the bear. If DS insists, I am ready to put a list of statements he has made here under the microscope.

*

You think my description of 'moronic' and 'irrelevant' was unjustified? Did you think about what his statement actually said?

I contend it would have been less moronic and less irrelevant if DS had stated instead:

If pigs could fly, that would prove I was God.

At least for that statement the hypothetical part of an if-statement has some way of being tested. The second part would then become relevant to this discussion. If pigs do start flying, I will concede DS is God, and I would accept all statements he has ever made as infallible - even the ones which contradict each other.

Read what he said carefully, "If the Chicago University Press switched to an outside style guide for it's own publications ..." Excuse me while I check for blizzards in the weather forecast of Hell. And if the practically impossible did happen, why would the necessary consequence be what he so blithely asserts?

That statement was nothing more than a moronic hypothetical invented solely because he was determined to continue arguing, no matter what, and he had nothing relevant to say.

a significant moneyspinner

Unless they ate the turkey that lays the golden eggs over Thanksgiving.

Judging by how much they charge, particularly for the latest edition, I would imagine CMS represents a significant source of income.

Not necessarily. The high price could also be a result of not printing that many copies so there are fewer economies of scale to bring the unit cost down. Which would imply that it's not a significant profit source.

Even if they have a high profit margin on each copy sold, that says nothing about the aggregate amount of income they get from CMOS without also knowing how many copies they sell.

Not necessarily. The high price could also be a result of not printing that many copies

OH, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

The various editions have sold over one-and-a-half million copies.

Do you really think they have sold that many by "focusing" on "academic writing"? Perhaps, somewhere along the way, they shifted their focus to become relevant to all types of nonfiction publishing - to sell more copies, dumbass.

The various editions have sold over one-and-a-half million copies.

CMOS was first published in 1906, 111 years ago. 1.5 Million/111 = 13.5K copies/year. Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

At a $70 price tag, that's just $95K in gross revenue. Not exactly a big profit center for a University that claims to be a $5 billion enterprise.

https://budgetoffice.uchicago.edu/page/operating-budget

Or perhaps, somewhere along the way, they shifted their focus to become relevant to all types of nonfiction publishing to sell more copies.

That they expanded to cover other areas of writing doesn't prove, or even imply that academic writing doesn't remain the primary focus of the publisher in producing it.

CMOS was first published in 1906, 111 years ago. 1.5 Million/111 = 13.5K copies/year. Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

YES! How many books about writing can you find which have sold more copies? I assure you, excluding other works by Strunk, there are not many.

A more relevant calculation would be total sales of about one million for editions 14 through 16, since the 14th edition was published in 1993.

You assert:

That they expanded to cover other areas of writing doesn't prove, or even imply that academic writing doesn't remain the primary focus of the publisher in producing it.

Have a taste of your own medicine ... You find anything they have said suggesting their focus is academic writing.

Have a taste of your own medicine ... You find anything they have said suggesting their focus is academic writing.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/press/about.html

Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, the Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Through our books and journals, we seek not only to advance scholarly conversation within and across traditional disciplines but, in keeping with the University of Chicago's experimental tradition, to help define new areas of knowledge and intellectual endeavor.

In addition to publishing the results of research for communities of scholars, the Press presents innovative scholarship in ways that inform and engage general readers. We develop reference works and educational texts that draw upon and support the emphases of our scholarly programs and that extend the intellectual reach of the Press.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/press/about.html

Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, the Press has embraced as its mission ...

That would have been relevant if your original statement had asserted the focus of UCP, as opposed to 'CMOS', was to further academic scholarship, as opposed to 'academic writing'.
I would not have been fussed if you had said, "the focus of CMOS was to further academic scholarship," but when CMOS focuses on writing it is targeting sales to all types of formal writers, and some poor suckers among informal writers who can't find anything better.
The "mission" of the publisher does not imply every publication it makes is limited to that mission - certainly the fiction it publishes is not.
I estimate that about 4% of books it has published since 2000 are fiction. Do you think the other 96% is entirely academic works, or just perhaps, they publish a significant percentage of non-academic non-fiction too.
This statement in what you quoted strongly suggests to me that is so:

In addition to publishing the results of research for communities of scholars, the Press presents innovative scholarship in ways that inform and engage general readers.

I interpret that as saying they actively go beyond 'communities of scholars' seeking authors capable of presenting scholarly ideas 'in ways that inform and engage general readers.'

I interpret that as saying they actively go beyond 'communities of scholars' seeking authors capable of presenting scholarly ideas 'in ways that inform and engage general readers.'

I said academic writing was their primary focus, I never said it was their only focus.

Yes they go beyond 'communities of scholars', but that doesn't make the beyond the primary focus. If the beyond was the primary focus that would imply that the beyond was more important to them than the 'communities of scholars'. I don't see anything to justify such a conclusion.

DS, I warned you explicitly.

If DS insists, I am ready to put a list of statements [the ones I had just labelled as 'blatant falsehoods'] he has made here under the microscope.

Taking the gloves off did not work. Let's see how you cope after I put my knuckledusters on!

To everybody else … You're all, no doubt, befuddled by how a disagreement over something so trivial – so mind-blowingly irrelevant to absolutely anything – could generate such hostility. That's understandable. But this has never been a fight about what the "primary focus" of CMOS is. It's just another skirmish in the undeclared war between DS and I that has been brewing for a very long time. Actually, it is the fact it is so trivial that allows me to conclude a hot war is inevitable – and I always prefer to get those started immediately.

Just for the record … this is how I see our current disagreement …

The statement which set it off was when DS said this:

The Chicago Manual of Style is written by the Chicago University Press and it's primary focus is formal academic writing.

I would certainly agree the "primary focus" of the University of Chicago Press (UCP) is on something "academic". The expression I would use is "academic scholarship", by which I mean UCP focuses on publishing works that will enhance the quest for knowledge within academia, but publishes such works written both inside and outside academia. DS provide a quote by UCP saying its "mission" included publishing works that "engage general readers", but somehow – you go figure – he thinks they expect to achieve that with a 'primary focus [on] formal academic writing'. We all know how crowded the 'Books by Academics' Section of book stores always is.

I thought my initial post was innocuous enough.

I disagree that its focus is on academic writing. It has sections covering everything that should be included between the front and back covers of all types of books.

Hoping to avoid another fight over something stupid, I went on with something hoping to provide him face-saving excuse to just let this one through to the keeper.

You might be confusing it with the ubiquitous place Strunk's other effort, The Elements of Style, has within American academia. I saw a figure once that it is included in the reading list for 90% of all university courses across the country.

The assertion by DS that CMOS's primary focus is formal academic writing is simply baseless. I would say its entire focus is on publishing, specifically of formal writing of all types.
This is how the home page of its online site describes itself.

The Chicago Manual of Style Online is the venerable, time-tested guide to style, usage, and grammar in an accessible online format. It is the indispensable reference for writers, editors, proofreaders, indexers, copywriters, designers, and publishers, informing the editorial canon with sound, definitive advice.
- from http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html

If DS ever reads anything we post here, as opposed to scanning posts for what he wants to see, he will be shaking his head right now. "How can that be?" he squirms. "It lists seven different professions for which it is 'the indispensable reference' – and not one of them is even remotely 'academic'!"

The hard copy version of the 16th Edition begins with an over 200-page-long "PART ONE: THE PUBLISHING PROCESS". Is anything in that relevant to "academic writing" but not equally relevant to other types of formal writing? I've studied the index pretty thoroughly and my conclusions are: None!; Nyet!; Nada!; Gotcha!, you loathsome serial pest!

MY CHALLENGE ...

Can you find ANYTHING* in CMOS that is relevant to "academic writing" but not equally relevant to other types of formal writing?

* I found a few trivial points in Chapter 14, Documentation I: Notes and Bibliography. You may list them if you wish, as far as I'm concerned, but I think you'd only convince others you're a fool if you suggest they constitute any sort of evidence CMOS has any focus at all on, specifically, academic writing.

* * *

But none of that matters to me, nor to others here, nor, I have no doubt, to you. This fight is really about the under-handed tactics you constantly employ once you become embroiled in "debates" here. Others may be willing to mostly suffer in silence: judging their life is easier if they try to ignore you once you start in on one of your mind games. I do not doubt their wisdom in deciding that is best for them.

I'm constantly amazed by the capacity of humans for 'learned helplessness' when abuse seems inevitable – but I'm not like the character Reek in Game of Thrones. It is not best for me to suffer in silence indefinitely – and no amount of wishing it were could make it so. Once it's been proven kowtowing to a bully is my only alternative, I always prefer to be honest and open about the fact that a relationship is openly antagonistic and mutually contemptuous.

In my next instalment I will closely examine the way you "debate" issues here. I will 'name the behaviours' for precisely what they are. I expect some others will find it illuminating: to finally see, and have a name for, exactly what it is you do that drives them so crazy, so frequently.

TO BE CONTINUED …

* * *

Just to clear away a few outstanding issues before the fun begins …

I have mentioned several times that UCP has a significant catalogue of fiction, 197 by my count. DS has responded along these lines several times.

I did a search for "fiction" on the UCP books page. maybe one item was possibly actual fiction rather than scholarly work about fiction.

It's not particularly difficult to navigate from the UCP home page to that calalogue. The selections required are: BOOKS, Browse by: SUBJECT, Literature and Literary Criticism, Fiction. I got there by selecting the first result from a Google search for "university chicago press fiction".

If that's representative of your internet research skills you should start saying you cannot find something, rather than asserting it does not exist, when you look for something and come up empty.

*

I stated earlier that total sales of CMOS since 1993 were about one million. That is based on statements on the UCP website that (a) total sales of all editions are currently over 1.5 million, and (b) sales of the 14th edition were "over half a million … taking total sales over one million".

*

When I mentioned the figure before, CMOS had sold about a million copies since 1993, DS responded with:

That's impressive, but where are you getting those figures from?

Given that he did me the courtesy of replacing his previous "I suspect their sales are low" with "That's impressive", I owe him an apology for not doing him the courtesy of responding with a thank you.

Can you find ANYTHING* in CMOS that is relevant to "academic writing" but not equally relevant to other types of formal writing?

Chapter 15: Documentation II: Author-Date References

The author-date system is used by many in the physical, natural, and social sciences and is recommended by Chicago for works in those areas.

I have read your reply.

@Dominions Son

In my next instalment I will closely examine the way you "debate" issues here. I will 'name the behaviours' for precisely what they are. I expect some others will find it illuminating: to finally see, and have a name for, exactly what it is you do that drives them so crazy, so frequently.

I've already seen what he does. Earlier in this thread I tried to correct one of his remarks and stirred up his ire.

Most readers may not have got it due to the many postings to other subthreads between, so here are they again, cosecutive and without ommittings or additions. See for yourself:

Dominions Son 25.11.2017, 19:06:45

@awnlee jawking

No doubt I'll be proved wrong as soon as I post this, but I can't imagine any requirement for an ellipsis in an academic paper.

Academic papers often quote other papers, and if you have a longish quote with material in the middle not relevant to your paper, that's reason to use an ellipsis.

Replies: helmut_meukel

------------

helmut_meukel 26.11.2017, 05:24:03

@Dominions Son

Academic papers often quote other papers, and if you have a longish quote with material in the middle not relevant to your paper, that's reason to use an ellipsis.

Right, but that's done this way: [...]

Using just an ellipsis would be ambivalent.

If already used in the original paper it's ... , to denote you ommitted some original text in your quote you have to use square brackets around the ellipsis.

HM.

Replies: Dominions Son

------------

Dominions Son 26.11.2017, 05:28:10

@helmut_meukel

Right, but that's done this way: [...]

Using just an ellipsis would be ambivalent.

If already used in the original paper it's ... , to denote you ommitted some original text in your quote you have to use square brackets around the ellipsis.

No, you wouldn't do that. Academic papers don't quote quotes from other papers, only material that is original to the paper being quoted.

In the kind of situation you describe, in an academic context, you would be expected to quote the original paper.

Replies: helmut_meukel

------------

helmut_meukel 26.11.2017, 06:07:45

@Dominions Son

No, you wouldn't do th at. Academic papers don't quote quotes from other papers, only material that is original to the paper being quoted.

Did I write the quoted text was a quote?

There are even in academic papers uses for an ellipsis in the original text e.g. using an ellipsis as last entry of an enumeration.

To distinguish my ommitting of text from an ellipsis already in the quoted text I use square brackets around my ellipsis.

HM.

------------

[end of copied postings]

------------

You see how he claims I wrote about quoting from quotes.

After some research I realized that using the ellipsis enclosed in brackets to distinguish between me ommitting some text from a quote and an ellipsis already in the quoted original text isn't so common in English than in other languages (French, Spanish, German, Polish ...), so DS may not have known this usage.

I found this however:

The Modern Language Association (MLA) used to indicate that an ellipsis must include spaces before and after each dot in all uses. If an ellipsis is meant to represent an omission, square brackets must surround the ellipsis to make it clear that there was no pause in the original quote: [ . . . ]. Currently, the MLA has removed the requirement of brackets in its style handbooks. However, some maintain that the use of brackets is still correct because it clears confusion.[9]

The MLA now indicates that a three-dot, spaced ellipsis ( … ) should be used for removing material from within one sentence within a quote. When crossing sentences (when the omitted text contains a period, so that omitting the end of a sentence counts), a four-dot, spaced (except for before the first dot) ellipsis (. . . . ) should be used. When ellipsis points are used in the original text, ellipsis points that are not in the original text should be distinguished by enclosing them in square brackets (e.g. "text […] text").[10]

The change in mind creates confusion, especially the last sentence. To be certain of the requirement – no ellipsis in the original text – you would have to scan the whole original text. If restricted to the quoted text, the advise will create additional confusion if I use more than one quote from the same or different original texts, some containing an ellipsis in the origial text some not and I quote the full text containing an ellipsis and in the next quote I ommit some text without using brackets around my ellipsis, because this quoted text didn't contain an ellipsis originally.

Consistency demands to allways use brackets around the ellipsis for ommitting text within quotes.

HM.

"Please have a seat, Mrs.…?"

So it's really a dot (for Mrs.) plus an ellipsis, but it's basically 4 dots.

How would you write it if the name is known?

Mrs.Franklin or Mrs. Franklin? I've a blackout and can't remember how it's done in English. In German it's usually "Frau Meier" or less frequently "Fr. Meier", in German I would write "Fr. ...?".

In your example I would write "Please have a seat, Mrs. ...?"

HM.

Just a final thought (after posting my answer): make this space an non-breakable space to avoid a line break there.

"Please have a seat, Mrs.…?"

I'll get back to you later with supporting evidence.
Definitely, this must end with either three periods or an ellipsis character, then the question mark and end quote without any spaces.
My gut tells me to be consistent with always or never having a non-breaking space before an ellipsis, but there appears a certain logic to what CW says that he omits his usual space when an ellipsis is followed by some other punctuation mark then an end quote.
But definitely not a period then an ellipsis, with or without a space between them.

It's not unknown a single woman on a business trip etc to put on a wedding ring to reduce the likelihood of unwanted attention.

If a single woman does that, then get's her panties in a twist over someone assuming she's married, she's an asshole.

@AJ
It's not unknown a single woman on a business trip etc to put on a wedding ring to reduce the likelihood of unwanted attention.
@DS
If a single woman does that, then get's [sic] her panties in a twist over someone assuming she's married, she's an asshole.

WTF?
AJ made a perfectly reasonable observation.
DS comes along and pulls "single woman ... gets her panties in a twist over someone assuming she's married" out of absolutely nowhere!
No one has anything even remotely suggesting that. Why? Just so he can manufacture an excuse to declare, "She's an asshole." It kinda begs the question, ...?

No one has anything even remotely suggesting that.

Yes, someone did. You should try following the full context of the discussion.

Here's how we got here.

SB's original suggested text "Please have a seat, Mrs.…?"

CW commented that the woman might object to the assumption that she was married.

SB provides context that she is wearing a wedding ring.

AJ suggests some single women might wear wedding rings in some circumstances.

Going back to CW's comment, a single woman wearing a wedding ring has no business getting upset at someone assuming they are married.

DS, you are a master in selective quoting and combining the quotes so they seem to bolster-up your interpretation.
I added the figures in brackets to the quote as references.

No one has anything even remotely suggesting that.

Yes, someone did. You should try following the full context of the discussion.

Here's how we got here.

SB's original suggested text "Please have a seat, Mrs.…?"

CW commented that the woman might object to the assumption that she was married. [1]

SB provides context that she is wearing a wedding ring. [2]

AJ suggests some single women might wear wedding rings in some circumstances. [3]

Going back to CW's comment, a single woman wearing a wedding ring has no business getting upset at someone assuming they are married. [4]

[1] falsified by obmission, CW wrote (enhancement by me):
"However, if he (a waiter) didn't know her marital status, would he even assume she's married to the man? In today's age, that's likely to lose you your tip."

Can you see the difference? Assuming she is married to the man she sits with? This could be a business partner or a co-worker or ...

[2] The context given, it's Steele who assumes she is married – wedding ring – and was sitting in a bar with a man who is not her husband – "He picked me up and we had a few drinks.".

[3] Now AJ says Steele's assumption of her marital status and the implication of infidelity may be not valid.

[4] Given the facts, how did you come to this conclusion?

HM.

DS, you are a master in selective quoting and combining the quotes so they seem to bolster-up your interpretation.

Nice one, 99.

I was prepared to give in this time ... but with two determined detectives working on HIS case I can see the chance we might really get somewhere! :-)

*

In fact the thing that had distracted me was this, already prepared and waiting for a final proof read ...

@Dominions Son

@Ross at Play
Can you find ANYTHING* in CMOS that is relevant to "academic writing" but not equally relevant to other types of formal writing?
@Dominions Son
Chapter 15: Documentation II: Author-Date References
The author-date system is used by many in the physical, natural, and social sciences and is recommended by Chicago for works in those areas.

WRONG! ... just another example of the crap you consistently come up with that, however ingenious your skills at sophistry may be, collapses on a closer examination of what you are saying.

What you are actually saying here is that all books published in the fields of "physical, natural, and social sciences" are "academic writing". That is self-evidently TOTAL CRAP. There are many books in those fields written by non-academics, and surely avoiding the style of academic writing to attract more general readers, and I've no doubts that UCP publishes a significant number of them.

I may admire the ingenuity of Hannibal Lecter ... but that doesn't mean I'd accept an invitation to dinner!

*

It may be a while before I complete the continuation I promised in the post you were responding to. As always, once I become embroiled in an ongoing dispute with anyone here, I redouble my efforts to ensure I believe everything I say is both literally accurate - and relevant to the point under discussion. But I am determined that post must achieve a much more important overall objective: to ensure the hostility in our relationship is forever more out in the open.

I admit you are far too clever for me to compete under your preferred etiquette of engagement: there's no way anyone who cares about believing in the accuracy of all their statements possibly could! I have no intention in the future of being the first to go beyond the bounds of calm, polite, and rational debate, but once you do, I will no longer feel morally bound to continue on as if you were engaging in a rational debate until it's conclusively proven you are not. My life will surely be much more carefree once I can quickly move on to crafting my rebuttals to you presuming* you are motivated are nothing more than the desire to derive sadistic pleasure from the aggravation you can cause others.

* I know that would be only a presumption, a very damning one, and I cannot be certain it is true. However, it is based on a massive amount of evidence, with IMHO some very obvious and very consistent patterns. If you think I misinterpret your intentions there is a simple test you use to could learn the truth. You could make a post here asking simply, "Does anyone who frequents these forums regularly NOT believe I am a sadist?"

There are many books in those fields written by non-academics, and surely avoiding the style of academic writing to attract more general readers

It's true that non-academic / non-scholarship books are out there, and I've read more than a few of them, and from my experience, such books written for more general readers, do not engage in such formal forms of citation, with which many of the readers could not be expected to be familliar.

a master in selective quoting and combining the quotes so they seem to bolster-up your interpretation.

By way of happy coincidence, I came across a word recently, looked up its precise meaning, and thought, "I think I have a good use for that word."
The entry for it from the Oxford Dictionary is:

soph·is·try noun
BrE /ˈsɒfɪstri/ ; NAmE /ˈsɑːfɪstri/
(plural soph·is·tries) (formal)
1 [uncountable] the use of clever arguments to persuade people that something is true when it is really false
* Convincing myself that I had gained in some way from my loss was just pure sophistry.

2 [countable] a reason or an explanation that tries to show that something is true when it is really false
* He was hostile to their hypocritical sophistries.

- Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 9th edition © Oxford University Press, 2015

[re: sophistry] I'd be cautious with how you use the term.

Thanks.
I came across it in the NY Times within the last few days, but I will follow your advice that it's too archaic(?) for everyday use.

However, if he (a waiter) didn't know her marital status, would he even assume she's married to the man? In today's age, that's likely to lose you your tip."

Can you see the difference? Assuming she is married to the man she sits with? This could be a business partner or a co-worker or ...

I don't see it as being as different as you clearly do.

1. Losing the tip indicates offense was taken at the assumption.

2. Addressing the woman as Mrs implies that she is married, I don't agree that it necessarily implies that she is married to the man she was with. Now if she had been addressed as Mrs. [the man's last name], that would be very different.

The real question here is:

Why would a woman take offense at the assumption she is married to the man she sits with at the table? (let's assume the waiter doesn't know either of the two.)

Look at it from the viewpoint of a radically feministic woman:

She alleges the waiter – because he is a man – an anti-woman mindset. A woman sitting with a man in public can only be respectable if she is married to this man. And she assumes he doubts her repectability by using "Please have a seat, Mrs.…?"
(She interpretes the question at the end of the sentence as either not married to the man or not married at all.)

So she takes offense.

Crazy? Yes, but most of us have met those women.

I think CW meant his remark that way.

HM.

She interpretes the question at the end of the sentence as either not married to the man or not married at all.

... or she could be married to another man than the one at her table.

Don't you think to speculate about a theoretical woman with a theoretical mindset in a theoretical situation is rather pointless and silly?

If you and Ross want to keep up your witch-hunt, at least try to make it entertaining for the unvoluntary witnesses.

If you and Ross want to keep up your witch-hunt, at least try to make it entertaining for the unvoluntary witnesses.

I'm only pursuing an altogether different witch-hunt.

I made one comment about DS's rant on women objecting to assumptions about their marital status - but I withdrew it quickly.
I wrote this:

No one has anything even remotely suggesting that.

DS resposded with this:

Yes, someone did. You should try following the full context of the discussion.

I responded with:

Sorry. I got that one wrong.
I did go back to check, but only as far as SB providing the dialogue.

* * *

My witch-hunt against DS, OTOH, is explicitly going after the tactics he uses once he decides to continue fighting someone, no matter what, until they give in. I regard his conduct of such exchanges as routinely, downright deceitful. I am fed up with playing what I see as childish games, which he excels at, where others seek to be honest in their statements, and they conduct themselves as if he was sincerely seeking to be honest - when they know damn well from bitter experience that he is not.

Can you honestly say you not have concluded that is precisely what he was doing a number of times in the relatively short time you've been a regular poster on these forums?

Can you honestly say you have not seen efforts by others to identify the truth of the point being debated being sabotaged because his only concern is winning the fight?

I have declared will not continue fighting on the battlefield he prefers, with me behaving as if I believed he was being sincere. From now on my focus will be on identifying and naming the tactics he is employing if I believe they are deceitful.

My first use of this style of counter-offensive is our current fight over a statement me hade that the "primary focus" of CMOS is on "formal academic writing". I assert their focus is on all formal writing, both academic and non-academic. It is about the most stupid thing imaginable to have triggered a Declaration of War, which kind of makes it ideal. The depths he is willing to descend to defend something so utterly trivial are truly mind-blowing.

It seems my Declaration of War has struck a chord with HM. I gather he has similar views about the way DS conducts fights here and he is fed up with them too. He saw an opportunity to mount an effective offensive in the same way I had vowed to do: naming DS's behaviours for what they truly are. I don't think HM chose the best example for that - I've seen many more blatant examples of clever, but deceitful, word games from DS - but I sincerely thank him for the courage to step into this "good fight" along side me.

I actually see many direct parallels between the modus operandi of DS and the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. The choice of victims and the types of the assaults are very different - but the motivations and methods employed by the perpetrators are identical, as too are the hoped for, and unfortunately too frequent, responses of the victims.

It has taken women many decades to reach a point where some women can overcome their trepidation about the inevitable backlashes if they speak out about predatory behaviours (type: sexual; victims: female) by some men. Their good fight still has a very long way to go based on the consistent findings of surveys on the level of sexual assaults which women do not report.

I see no differences of any substance when it comes to predatory behaviours (type: emotional; victims: other males). Different perpetrators choose different victims - those they assess themselves as capable of intimidating into silence. The psychology of both parties is identical.

Sadly, it will probably be a very long time before the existence of this fact becomes a topic for discussion in public forums. It is only discussed by "weirdos in self-help groups", but not that long ago that is all the early feminists were too.

Males are mostly so inculcated to fear and defer to other Type A males that any objections they are using unethical tactics are viewed as a crybaby running to their mommy for protection. Almost no male would dare say they agree with another male who made such comments. They instinctively know they would then be viewed as "unmanly". "Real men" accept it is the natural order of things they must suck it up and accept whatever any more dominant male does to them!

That is indeed the "natural order of things" - but I refuse to accept it. Many women have shown us the way: that something need not be accepted just because it is the "natural order of things". You know what they say, "Giving in to terrorists only encourages the bastards!"

I for one, even if the only one, am fully prepared to accept the inevitable blows that follow from daring to call a spade a deceitful little bully - if that is the fact of the matter. I prefer to accept the blows others may land over the knowledge I too afraid of the consequences of speaking the truth.

I stress that I welcome participation in debates here by DS. I will only object when, in my opinion, he becomes deceitful in the way he debates. I expect that will happen quite often. I probably won't get it absolutely right every time, but I will work hard to ensure my statements are always literally accurate, relevant, and intended to promote honesty in the way debates here are conducted.

Robberhands, is that "entertaining" enough for you? And thought-provoking? Please excuse me now. I want to return to the post I was drafting before seeing your comments. I trust you and others will find that one interesting and illuminating, and you'll also find amusement among the heavy doses of sarcasm I am plastering throughout it.

Can you honestly say you not have concluded that is precisely what he was doing a number of times in the relatively short time you've been a regular poster on these forums?

Yes, DS sometimes acts like an annoying prick; purposefully misinterpreting statements or ignoring them all together just to produce an artficially created, and utterly pointless objection. I'm also pretty sure he knows his character flaws better than anyone else.

Now that it's said, 'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him.'

'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him.'

That's not the ideal quote to throw at me - given I recently described myself as being an "equal-opportunity despiser of all religions".

That said, I do my best to adhere to a standard of ethics in my behaviour. I do not classify anything a 'sin' unless there is an intention to cause harm. Even then, I consider an intention to harm morally justified when necessary to defend one's legitimate interests. I do not go that far without first making an unambiguous "Quit Poland or else" statement. I have done that already and he has made it clear he will not budge.

A war seems inevitable at this point, but I assure you I will adhere to this statement I made above:

I probably won't get it absolutely right every time, but I will work hard to ensure my statements are always literally accurate, relevant, and ...

'Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him.'

Sins aplenty here, but I have always refrained from the sin of baiting. It's like bullying or teasing, and a bit childish I think.

Here's how we got here.
SB's original suggested text "Please have a seat, Mrs.…?"
CW commented that the woman might object to the assumption that she was married.

Sorry. I got that one wrong.
I did go back to check, but only as far as SB providing the dialogue. I've been distracted by something else today.

I'm just pondering how good a private investigator Remington Steele might be. Would he assume a man without a wedding ring is single?

I'm not sure if that's relevant to assuming someone wearing a wedding ring is married, but if the investigator is significantly observant, he probably could figure it out.

Does the ring finger show a compression mark where the ring finger grew into a ring that is now too small?

Does the ring finger show a tan line where the ring would be?

So it's really a dot (for Mrs.) plus an ellipsis, but it's basically 4 dots.

I'll do some research for you later on. I've got some more-urgent other business to attend to, so remind me if I haven't responded by next weekend.
My gut reaction is don't do that.
I'm quite sure there is a principle that if an abbreviated word including a full stop appears at the end of a sentence, then a second full stop is not used to end the sentence, i.e. a single full stop serves for both functions.
I'm also reasonably sure that an ellipsis at the end a sentence also serves the same function of ending the sentence.
I think the situation is difference when a sentence ends with both an ellipsis and either a question mark or exclamation. It is then the other mark that serves the second function of ending the sentence.
Also, what HM says sounds familiar. I think everything the current author does that alters a previous text is enclosed in square brackets, so an un-bracketed ellipsis in a quote was included in the text being quoted.
Certainly quotes within quotes with quotes are acceptable. The writer shows the nesting by alternating between single and double quotation marks.

The "mission" of the publisher does not imply every publication it makes is limited to that mission - certainly the fiction it publishes is not.

Actually in can be. Professors at modern universities are expected to publish. A professor in a music program might be expected to publish musical composition. Likewise a professor of literature might be expected to publish some literature.

I estimate that about 4% of books it has published since 2000 are fiction.

From what? I did a search for "fiction" on the UCP books page. maybe one item was possibly actual fiction rather than scholarly work about fiction.

Do you think the other 96% is entirely academic works, or just perhaps, they publish a significant percentage of non-academic non-fiction too.

A lot depends on what you consider significant. I wouldn't consider 4% particularly significant. I would be surprised if they publish much more non-academic non-fiction than that.

I will prepare a detailed response to that post but I want to take enough time to ensure it says precisely what I want.

A more relevant calculation would be total sales of about one million for editions 14 through 16, since the 14th edition was published in 1993.

That's impressive, but where are you getting those figures from? I'm not finding total sales numbers for 15 or 16 on either the University of Chicago press website or on http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/help-tools/about.html does indicate total sales of 500K for the 14th edition, though that's over more than a decade, it's impressive for a reference work.

That's impressive, but where are you getting those figures from?

As I said before:

You are wasting the time of others pursuing a stupid argument and I feel disinclined to make that easier for you by handing you evidence on a platter.

I somebody else asks me nicely enough, I'll point out the figures to them.

No doubt I'll be proved wrong as soon as I post this, but I can't imagine any requirement for an ellipsis in an academic paper.

Academic papers often quote other papers, and if you have a longish quote with material in the middle not relevant to your paper, that's reason to use an ellipsis.

Academic papers often quote other papers, and if you have a longish quote with material in the middle not relevant to your paper, that's reason to use an ellipsis.

Right, but that's done this way: [...]
Using just an ellipsis would be ambivalent.
If already used in the original paper it's ... , to denote you ommitted some original text in your quote you have to use square brackets around the ellipsis.

HM.

Right, but that's done this way: [...]
Using just an ellipsis would be ambivalent.
If already used in the original paper it's ... , to denote you ommitted some original text in your quote you have to use square brackets around the ellipsis.

No, you wouldn't do that. Academic papers don't quote quotes from other papers, only material that is original to the paper being quoted.

In the kind of situation you describe, in an academic context, you would be expected to quote the original paper.

No, you wouldn't do that. Academic papers don't quote quotes from other papers, only material that is original to the paper being quoted.

Did I write the quoted text was a quote?
There are even in academic papers uses for an ellipsis in the original text e.g. using an ellipsis as last entry of an enumeration.
To distinguish my ommitting of text from an ellipsis already in the quoted text I use square brackets around my ellipsis.

HM.

I can't imagine any requirement for an ellipsis in an academic paper.

But I can imagine it being used in all of the fiction UCP publishes.

But I can imagine it being used in all of the fiction UCP publishes.

While the UCP does publish books, as far as I can tell from their web site, they do not publish any fiction.

http://press.uchicago.edu/books/subject.html

While the UCP does publish books, as far as I can tell from their web site, they do not publish any fiction.
http://press.uchicago.edu/books/subject.html

WRONG!

Only their non-fiction catalog is divided by "subject".

Only their non-fiction catalog is divided by "subject".

Sorry, but that list comes from a browse by subject link on their main books page http://press.uchicago.edu/books , top right.

It's odd, you say I'm wrong, yet you don't point to a single work of fiction published by UCP. If they published fiction, I would expect "Fiction" to show up in the browse by subject list, but it doesn't.

It's odd, you say I'm wrong, yet you don't point to a single work of fiction published by UCP.

You are wasting the time of others pursuing a stupid argument and I feel disinclined to make that easier for you by handing you evidence on a platter.

A single work of fiction published by UCP?
A River Runs Through It by Norman Maclean was published by UCP. With my emphasis ...

During 1977 the Pulitzer Prize committee for fiction (aka "fiction jury") recommended A River Runs Through It be awarded the prize for that year. The Pulitzer Prize Board, which has final say for awarding the prize, chose to override their recommendation and decided not to award for fiction that year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_River_Runs_Through_It_(novel)

A River Runs Through It and Other Stories is a semi-autobiographical collection of three stories by author Norman Maclean

Fiction? Maybe not.

Fiction? Maybe not.

And all of the other UCP has published as "fiction"?

I wondered a while ago what you looked like. I'm going to try a search for "clutcher at straws".

And all of the other UCP has published as "fiction"?

Again, there doesn't seem to be much of any actual fiction. Mostly books that are academic reviews of various areas of fiction.

Again, there doesn't seem to be much of any actual fiction.

Again, I see hundreds of works of actual fiction.

I'm going to try a search for "clutcher at straws".

Hey, guys. Does this sound like anyone we know?

a clutcher at straws. Hardly able to get off the beach - struck dead-stuck, emotionally and physically. As live as, yes, a piano. Deserted by friend, relative and foe alike

You are wasting the time of others pursuing a stupid argument and I feel disinclined to make that easier for you by handing you evidence on a platter.

I tried searching the UCP site for "fiction". There are a few results that might be actual fiction, but the vast majority are academic books about fiction in general or specific genre.

I tried searching the UCP site for "fiction". There are a few results that might be actual fiction, but the vast majority are academic books about fiction in general or specific genre.

They have a list including a significant number of books described simply as "A Novel".

but most major publishing houses use it as their go-to source, and so it's also used in most fiction too

That says nothing about the focus or concerns of the people who make it. That's what I'm interested in. Personally I don't care what the dead tree publishers do.

That's it's primary usage, but most major publishing houses use it as their go-to source, and so it's also used in most fiction too.

There's that claim again, but when I tried to verify it from their websites, each publishing house appeared to have its own in-house style guide.

AJ

Maybe Ross knows for sure, but my understanding is CMS says to write out the number in that adjective

I'm sure CMOS says write out all numbers up to one hundred, but the equivalent for British English, New Harts Rules, says only up to ten.

I've never looked into what the style guides for newspapers suggest. It would not surprise me if some listed specific situations, say hyphenated adjectival phrases, when they allow numerals for smaller numbers than they usually would.

Some of these in-house style guides have been around for a very long time with no particular reason to change them. At the time the NY Times and The Economist devised theirs, the cost of paper, ink, and type-setting were significant - thus they found every possible way to eliminate every character that were not essential.

That's true, but the only time that commas significantly impact cost was back when they required their own type block, and then it was additional labor cost and not paper or ink costs.

That makes me curious, was there ever a time where block type was used and commas did not require their own block?

the only time that commas (really mattered) was additional labor cost and not paper or ink costs.

I've no reason to doubt that labour was the most significant of those costs back then.
The point of my post was that the choices for in-house style guides of some newspapers were made for historical reasons, when the cost of extra commas would have been significant. They still tend to be miserly about every extra character used because there's no necessity to change their style.
That's why I would not consider using the style guide of any newspaper for fiction.

The only explanation for the Associated Press to continue this charade is consistency.

Whoa, SB! Please don't get CW going again on the validity (as opposed to 'charade') of the non-serial comma style. :-)

I'm sure CW would concede that - when wielded by inexperienced or careless writers - the non-serial comma style is more prone to allowing potential ambiguities to slip through undetected. But the AP guide is intended for journalists, hopefully with the expertise to detect such problems and rework their writing accordingly, and any they miss should be detected by very experienced editors checking for precisely those kinds of things.

CMS = x . . . x

Interesting. I have always understood that an ellipsis is a single character formed of three dots (…), at the line level or mid line. Despite CMoS being the oracle for many, using three periods, especially with spaces between them, invites a myriad of formatting issues. The single character ellipsis is always the safest.

Can those end up being broken, like 2 dots at the end of a line and 1 dot on the next line?

I use three periods as an ellipsis all the time - I dare say I'm the uncrowned king of the ellipsis - and SOL's wizard never broke them apart.

Can those end up being broken, like 2 dots at the end of a line and 1 dot on the next line?

With default line-break and hyphenation settings, web browsers may insert line breaks between the periods, but they'll prefer putting the line break at whitespace if at all possible, so it only actually happens in degenerate cases - a single word longer than the line immediately followed by the ellipsis.

It is possible with CSS to set it to only break at whitespace, so even in degenerate cases, it won't break in the middle of the ellipsis. Or to prefer hyphenating the word, though I've found browser support for the hyphenation settings to be iffy.

Is there a difference between the spaces between three periods and a single space between the period ending one sentence and the start of the next sentence?

Not as far as the browser's concerned. If you put spaces between the periods in an ellipsis, the browser will treat them like any other whitespace, and feel free to put line breaks there. If you're going to put spaces in, do it like so: . . .

(  is the "non-breaking space" HTML entity, specifically intended for putting in spaces that it won't line-break at. It's a space that isn't treated as whitespace for purposes of collapsing whitespace or figuring out where to line-break.)

Without spaces, it may insert line breaks between periods if it absolutely has to, but it will prefer breaking at whitespace if it can.

Word has a single character for an ellipse

It is an ellipsis (plural ellipses), not an ellipse.

An ellipse is a curve in a plane surrounding two focal points such that the sum of the distances to the two focal points is constant for every point on the curve, not three dots.

Ah, caught by the grammar Nazis for a typo.

It wasn't just you, but, sadly, you were the first. When I saw others in the thread following suit, I just had to open my big ugly gob. I am a bit anal like that.

grammar Nazis

Are they opposed to Orange Jews?

Grammar Nazis are little old ladies from the Third Reich with 2nd generation descendants.

They usually come paired with grampar Nazis:)

Grammar Nazis are little old ladies from the Third Reich with 2nd generation descendants.

So they were born before 1946? Most of the first generation would have been born before 1986 when the ladies were 40 or or older. If their grandchild Nazis were born before 2000, so they were a grandma before that date. There weren't a lot of Nazis before say 1930. If one reproduced in the early 1930s, their offspring would likely have reproduced in the late 1940s or 1950s. That takes the first grandchild nazi to a birthday in the 1970s. Grandma Nazis are likely in their 70s or older. So we won't have a lot of them left in a few years, and even fewer grampar Nazis.

I doubt we will miss them.

I'm curious, is there a "grammar socialist", or a "grammar ally"? This constant harping on "grammar nazi"s get exhausting after a while.

Don't forget the "grammar anarchists". :)

Don't forget the "grammar anarchists". :)

They are easily overlooked because they always say they're "grammar libertarians", but however must they doth protest, the rest of us know they are a bunch of heretical grammar anarchists.

So what do others here give as their brief self-introduction at speed-dating events for socially-inept (implied!) wannabe authors? Mine is, Politics: liberal on economic issues, hard left on social issues; Grammar: conservative; Religion: equal-opportunity despiser of them all. There has not yet been one time when someone has heard that and did not immediately respond with, "NEXT!"

You should indulge in some kittenfishing if you want more success.

My first thought is what the heck is 'kittenfishing'. It sounds like hunting for an underage pussy to me. :-)

Okay, so I've learned 'kittenfishing' means "presenting yourself on a dating app in an unrealistically positive way". I thought that was already covered by the definition of 'using' a dating app.

Sadly, I'm a terrible liar.

The NY Times and Economist are newspapers/magazines. They always followed the AP Style Guide. It was written for them in mind.

Not true. The AP Style Guide was NOT written for the NY Times and Economist, and they DO NOT "always" follow the AP Style Guide.

The NY Times Style Guide started with the AP and was modified for their needs/quirks.

Can you cite a source for that? According to what's on Wikipedia for the AP manual of style and the NYT manual of style, the AP style guide was first created in 1953, but the NTY style guide was created in 1950, three years before the AP guide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Stylebook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage

Even if there is such a direct relationship as you suggest, the timeline for both that Wikipedia has would suggest that the AP Stylebook started from the NYT Manual of Style rather than the other way around.

The NY Times Style Guide started with the AP and was modified for their needs/quirks.

that statement is false.

'24 x 7' and '24 by 7' are references to the measurements of a rectangular area. 24/7 is a reference to time; it does not mean 24 by 7.

My $0.02: If you are going to spell out 24/7, it should be "twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week"

Who would say that?

I didn't say anyone would actually say that, but if you are going to insist on spelling it out in dialog, that's what it should really be.

... "twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week"

Who would say that? They'd say, "I'm available 24/7."

It all depends on the situation. I have used both.I have also added "365 days a year" to the first and used "24/7/365" for the latter.

twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week

I have also added "365 days a year"

When I worked retail at a location that only closed for about thirty-six hours on centered on noon Christmas day* I would say:

"twenty-four hours per day, 364 days a year".

*At the time, that location would close about 1800 hours on Christmas Eve and open at 0600 on Boxing Day.

used "24/7/365"

At that point I'd start saying, "All day, every day," perhaps adding, "except Christmas."

I've just plugged 24/7/365 into Google's ngram viewer. The result should give any mathematician apoplexy.

You can count me among the severely apoplexised.

I tried searching for just the slash character and got this message???

In compositions "*" [sic] is intepreted [sic] as multiplication and not as a wildcard.

Multiplication? WTF?

I think we're all shocked at just how unreliable ngrams are.

You can count me among the severely shocked too.

Has anyone found a way to get a sensible value for 24/7 out of ngrams?

With mathematical operators Google guesses if the operator should be interpreted as text or used as an operator acting on two Ngram expressions - it looks like it's being interpreted as an operator in 24/7. The way to force non-operator interpretation is to us square brackets (and round to force operator) - see the Ngram Compositions section in this page

However, there must be other problems as [24/7] doesn't find anything

I've just plugged 24/7/365 into Google's ngram viewer. The result should give any mathematician apoplexy.
Has anyone found a way to get a sensible value for 24/7 out of ngrams?

The answer it is giving for '24/7' is "sensible" - just not the answer I was hoping for.
If you search for '24/7, 7/24' it's easy to see the results are telling you that '7' is just over twice as common as '24'.
The ridiculously huge numbers for '24/7/365' a the result of something being divided by the very small frequency of '365'.

Aha, it sort of makes sense now. Thank you.

Madnige provided a link to the instruction manual which helped. (Why didn't I think of reading that first?)
The first of the FAQs at the bottom, Why am I not seeing the results I expect?, included this possible explanation:

Your phrase has a comma, plus sign, hyphen, asterisk, colon, or forward slash in it. Those have special meanings to the Ngram Viewer; see Advanced Usage. Try enclosing the phrase in square brackets (although this won't help with commas).

Note, someone has "tried" square brackets for '[24/7]', but that found nothing at all???

I;m not prepared to give up on ngrams because of some initial confusion in not realising when special characters where being treated as operands. Until now, the results when I've searched for words and phrases have all seemed reasonable enough.

Some have expressed skepticism about the results because the books chosen are overwhelmingly technical. With due care, I don't see that as a problem. For my purposes, I will mostly stick to using corpus 'English Fiction' and not go back any further than about 1950. At times I might compare the results between British English and American English.

If I want to compare how the use of something has changed over time I'll probably use the corpus 'English one million'. This uses the same number of books for every year, six thousands, selected for being a representative sample of books published during that year.

24/7/365

Surely the 7 is redundant. 24/365 should be all that is needed. Twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year.

I have also added "365 days a year" to the first and used "24/7/365" for the latter.

That makes not sense in combination with the 7 days a week.

That construct should be "twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year" or 24/7/52

Logically, 24/7 consists of a week. It may consist of multiple weeks, but it's at least one solid week.

Um, no.

fully spelled out it's 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

The per week necessarily implies multiple weeks.

as I've always heard it as "24 hours a day, 7 days a week".

Has the same meaning and still implicitly implies multiple weaks.

In the context of my story, it was about someone seriously overworked

I might consider actually using twenty-five hours a day, eight days a week in that situation.

twenty-five hours a day

Why daylight savings time converts back to standard time, there is a 25 hour day, the Sunday it happens. And in Spring when time goes forward, there is a 23 hour day.

She turns her clock forward 1 hour. Per her belief, she will lose 30 hours during the next 30 days because the days are now only 23 hours long.

Isn't the passing of time relative for all of us?

You got it. According to her she loses 1 hour a day until the next time change. I think that comes out to about 150 hours a year.

She should be happy about this, her aging is slowed down by one hour every day!

HM.