Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Jul 19, 2018 at 18:44 comment added jsw29 @JasonBassford, granted. The purpose of my comment was to suggest that, given that the answer takes the trouble to cite an authority (CMS) justifying two of the three possibilities (italics, quotation marks), it might be a good idea to provide parallel treatment to the third option (doing nothing, as long as there is no serious risk of misunderstanding) and cite an authority for it.
Jul 19, 2018 at 18:29 comment added Jason Bassford @jsw29 As a guideline, yes. But as I said, there are always exceptions. The use of italics or quotation marks serves as a visual cue for words as words. But in this particular sentence, they are prefaced by the words, so the usage is understood. (And indication was not dispensed with—it just wasn't represented visually.) Strict followers of Chicago would have used formatting. But, not everybody follows Chicago. As is pointed out in a different answer, The Times follows its own house style which does things differently.
Jul 19, 2018 at 18:23 comment added jsw29 The quoted CMS rule justifies using either italics or quotation marks for this purpose, but it does not give one the option of altogether dispensing with any indication that the words are to be treated as words, which was done in the article that prompted the question.
Jul 18, 2018 at 17:43 comment added Jason Bassford @Mitch Yes, I have provided that as an update.
Jul 18, 2018 at 17:43 history edited Jason Bassford CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1166 characters in body
Jul 18, 2018 at 17:06 comment added Mitch Did CMS say anything in particular about referring to words, i.e. the situation, like in the OP, of "the word 'traitor' has seven letters" vs "the word traitor has seven letters" ?
Jul 18, 2018 at 17:04 vote accept Ian Page
Jul 18, 2018 at 16:59 history answered Jason Bassford CC BY-SA 4.0