New Questions and Answers

Q. In a recent Q&A, you insist that “et al.” can be used only for two or more individuals. But cannot “et al.” equally be an abbreviated form of the singular “et alius”? And, as such, can it not be used for a single individual?

A. You’re right, there’s no reason et al. couldn’t stand for et alius (“and another”) rather than et alii/aliae/alia (“and others”). For our answer we (mostly) relied on Merriam-Webster and the OED, both of which define et al. only as “and others” and both of which cite et alii (masculine), et aliae (feminine), and et alia (neuter) as the only spelled-out forms. Maybe the dictionaries are right. Or maybe they’re missing the occasional singular use hidden behind the abbreviation. And it’s not like the world would end if one were to use et al. to stand in for a single person. We’ll keep tabs on this issue and consider reconsidering our advice someday.

Q. When writing units of measurement for fractions between 0 and 1, is the unit singular or plural? For example, “We walked 1/4 mile yesterday and 7/8 mile today,” or “Gently fold in 2/3 cup of blueberries.”

A. Amounts of less than one can usually be treated as singular when expressed as simple fractions—as in your three examples—but plural when expressed as decimal fractions. The difference is related to how such expressions would be spelled out or read aloud:

1/4 mile = one-fourth of a mile or a quarter of a mile or a quarter mile (among other variations)

7/8 mile = seven-eighths of a mile

2/3 cup = two-thirds of a cup

A decimal fraction, by contrast, would normally be read as a plural:

0.25 miles = (zero) point two five miles (rather than twenty-five hundredths of a mile)

But note that an abbreviated unit of measure is usually the same for both singular and plural quantities. So you’d write “0.25 mi.” even though “mi.” would be read as “miles.” See also CMOS 9.21 and 10.73.

Q. Is it Chicago style to not capitalize clauses in the US Constitution (the commerce clause, the due process clause, etc.)? If so, what is the reasoning?

A. Such terms are not normally capitalized in Chicago style; see CMOS 8.81, which includes the example “the due process clause.” The reason for lowercase is that the Constitution doesn’t have a Commerce Clause or a Due Process Clause—not with those titles anyway.

Instead, “commerce clause” and “due process clause” refer to certain passages in the Constitution that treat commerce and due process. We realize, however, that those terms (and others naming specific clauses) have acquired the status of proper nouns for many writers and are often styled with initial caps in published prose. And Merriam-Webster, though it uses lowercase in its headwords for such terms (see, e.g., the entry for “due process clause”), adds the label “often capitalized.”

If Chicago’s default style is too conservative for you, capitalization-wise, there’s nothing wrong with applying initial caps to such terms as long as you stick to clauses (e.g., the Due Process Clause, but the legal concept of due process).