Dominion Strategy Forum
Miscellaneous => General Discussion => Topic started by: Witherweaver on June 01, 2015, 09:40:46 am
-
So my primary job is making up various documentation on our quantitative models and methods. Basically, I edit and author math-type papers in LaTeX. But technical grammar and style guides are pretty relevant, too, as these are published to our clients and need to look professional, etc. I had this big argument with my boss that putting punctuation inside quotations is fucking retarded, because it is. I know that it's a rule in American English, but seeing as it's a stupid-ass rule, I choose to ignore it.
I basically think that, since the rest of the English-speaking world does this correctly, and we only have some bastardized form of the rule inspired by outdated typesetting, we should be able to choose whether or not we want to use it. (Like you would choose whether you want to follow a style that uses the Oxford comma or not.) Moreover, because we're a software company, we may want to refer to literal strings inside quotes, and in some cases those literal strings could contain punctuation. (In general I would usu some other syntax highlighting and not use quotes for this type of thing, but it could potentially come up.) It seems natural to me that any punctuation not part of the literal string should go outside of the quotes that contain the literal string.
Has anyone ever come across this "rule" being ignored in American publications?
(If any non-Americans are confused, we have this stupid rule where commas and periods that immediately follow quoted text are moved inside that text. So where as you would say:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox". Blah blah next sentence.
A third-grade English teacher in America would make their students write:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox." Blah blah next sentence.
It seems pretty clear to me that the former is correct, regardless of what textbooks say.)
-
I've started disobeying that rule too, except in school papers, or when it's quoting people talking (which I think is what the rule was meant for).
-
When quoting people directly, punctuation should be placed according to whether it is part of the quote or not. The "rule" of placing periods and commas inside quotes comes from historical typesetting, or at least that's how the story goes:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/150703/why-is-the-period-placed-inside-the-double-quote-at-the-end-of-a-sentence
The explanation for putting the period/full stop inside the quotation marks goes back to the early days of printing in Europe, back in the 1500s.
Each character in a printed line of text - letter, number, punctuation mark - came from a separate piece of metal type. All the individual pieces of metal were lined up on a template for printing (like this). The pieces of metal for each character were different sizes, depending on the character on the metal. An "m" was wider than an "i", for example. And, a full stop / period (.) was on a very small piece of metal.
When the punctuation was done as usual, the full stop / period was placed at the end of the line of type, after the quotation mark character. However, in this position at the end, the small piece of metal carrying the full stop would often fall off or even break. Therefore, printers starting putting the full stop before the final quotation mark, to stop it falling off or breaking.
This practice was in place well before 1600, when the first English colonists set out for the American continent.
The English in America and the English in Britain both put the period inside the final quotation mark for the next few hundred years. However, sometime during the 1800s and 1900s, when typesetting was done more on large machines and then computers, the British people went back to putting the full stop outside the final quote. The Americans did not change back.
Therefore, modern British English has the full stop outside the final quotation mark (the "logical quote") while modern American English has the period inside the final quotation mark (the "typesetters' quote").
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
-
Um.. it's not "randomly". The punctuation is not part of the literal string. Very straightforward here.
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
How do you feel about quotation marks floating randomly outside the boundaries of the sentence?
-
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox." Blah blah next sentence.
See, even though I know this is technically correct, as a programmer it looks to me like this:
<b>Bold word <i>bold italicized word</b></i>
Basically, the things (the sentence and the quote mark) are not being closed in a first-in-last-out way.
-
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox." Blah blah next sentence.
See, even though I know this is technically correct, as a programmer it looks to me like this:
<b>Bold word <i>bold italicized word</b></i>
Basically, the things (the sentence and the quote mark) are not being closed in a first-in-last-out way.
Right; this is also an issue.
-
I go to school in America and have always been taught (IIRC) to put them outside the quotation marks. Putting them inside would be like the missing right paren (https://xkcd.com/859/) in the above sentence.
-
I go to school in America and have always been taught (IIRC to put them outside the quotation marks. Putting them inside would be like the missing right paren (https://xkcd.com/859/) in the above sentence.
Five months from now I'm going to be playing a Mafia game with you and be up at night torturing over "IS LIO STILL SPEAKING PARENTHETICALLY OR NOT?!?!?!??!".
-
I go to school in America and have always been taught (IIRC to put them outside the quotation marks. Putting them inside would be like the missing right paren (https://xkcd.com/859/) in the above sentence.
Five months from now I'm going to be playing a Mafia game with you and be up at night torturing over "IS LIO STILL SPEAKING PARENTHETICALLY OR NOT?!?!?!??!".
If you look closely enough, it's there.
-
Interestingly, I don't think any style does what I did above. There seems to be a "if you end a sentence in a quote and the quote has punctuation then don't punctuate the sentence" rule in all styles, which is also a little odd. But one battle at a time.
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
vote: ashersky
Totes staging a pre-planned fight here. Classic.
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
vote: ashersky
Totes staging a pre-planned fight here. Classic.
Definitely not a "staged fight." That'd be "ridiculous and crazy."
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
How do you feel about quotation marks floating randomly outside the boundaries of the sentence?
The quotation mark isn't outside the boundary of the sentence, it completes the sentence. It's ironic to me that the supporters of throwing the punctuation out are using parentheses as an argument against me, when it is in fact supporting me. The quotation marks are like the arms of a hugger. When you separate the arm from the rest of the body, the hug becomes one-armed, and you get sprayed in blood from the other side.
My point is, keep both arms attached to the sentence.
-
I feel so strongly about this, in fact, that I would prefer to be stabbed in the face with a fork than have this rule changed.
I guess that's what I get for being the lone English major in a sea of computer/math people.
-
Unvote
Ashersky has convinced me. I can't help it, his argument just reads super genuine to me.
Death to one-armed hugs.
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
How do you feel about quotation marks floating randomly outside the boundaries of the sentence?
The quotation mark isn't outside the boundary of the sentence, it completes the sentence. It's ironic to me that the supporters of throwing the punctuation out are using parentheses as an argument against me, when it is in fact supporting me. The quotation marks are like the arms of a hugger. When you separate the arm from the rest of the body, the hug becomes one-armed, and you get sprayed in blood from the other side.
My point is, keep both arms attached to the sentence.
Uh, the quotes are hugging the word, not the punctuation (which doesn't belong to the word).
-
Well, think about this. Something in quotation marks can be thought of as one functional entity in a sentence. If we let quotation = "some phrase" (that's not a complete sentence, so no punctuation is necessary at the end), then the sentence 'We are talking about "some phrase."' doesn't have quotation in it, because quotation equals "some phrase", not "some phrase.". If we wrote the sentence 'We are talking about "some phrase".', however, we could put quotation in there to make it 'We are talking about quotation.'. Now, IF the quote ends in a period (say quote = "This is what I said.") then I do think it should be 'I just said, "This is what I said."', not 'I just said, "This is what I said.".'. But, that still leaves the problem of if we wanted to replace "This is what I said." with quote, do we kill the period to make it 'I just said, quote' or do we add in a period for some unknown reason to make it say 'I just said, quote.' I don't know.
I honestly don't know what I was trying to accomplish when typing this, but it suddenly became glorious.
-
Putting punctuation outside quotes is called "logical punctuation" for a reason: it's the logical thing to do. Any other approach is madness driven by aesthetics and not reason.
To be honest I dislike the practice of even calling it "putting punctuation outside quotes". What it really is is "putting punctuation in the right spot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia
ashersky: what do you think about commas, periods, semicolons, colons, em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points? Which of those go inside and which go outside? Why?
-
vote: witherweaver
I completely and utterly support punctuation being inside the quotation marks. If needed, I would dedicate a not insignificant portion of my life to ensuring that practice continues.
Randomly floating, unconnected punctuation is terrible and evil. That's what a period all alone outside the quotation marks is.
How do you feel about quotation marks floating randomly outside the boundaries of the sentence?
The quotation mark isn't outside the boundary of the sentence, it completes the sentence. It's ironic to me that the supporters of throwing the punctuation out are using parentheses as an argument against me, when it is in fact supporting me. The quotation marks are like the arms of a hugger. When you separate the arm from the rest of the body, the hug becomes one-armed, and you get sprayed in blood from the other side.
My point is, keep both arms attached to the sentence.
And this argument is obviously terrible. If quotation marks "completing the sentence are a thing, why don't they then gobble up everything until the sentence is complete?"
-
In fact, adopting the American style is such a fucking stupid ass thing to do that it makes me want to go kick my boss in the nuts.
Notably, I have now eschewed using quotations marks in my papers and have moved towards using italics if it's really necessary.
-
Putting punctuation outside quotes is called "logical punctuation" for a reason: it's the logical thing to do. Any other approach is madness driven by aesthetics and not reason.
To be honest I dislike the practice of even calling it "putting punctuation outside quotes". What it really is is "putting punctuation in the right spot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia
ashersky: what do you think about commas, periods, semicolons, colons, em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points? Which of those go inside and which go outside? Why?
Everything inside the quote.
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
Aesthetics matter. That's the difference between me and everyone else, I guess. Having the punctuation outside the quotation marks is jarring and ugly. It is an insult to the soul (if you believe it such things).
-
How is it ugly? They both have something kind of sitting away from the rest of the sentence.
-
In fact, because a quotation mark is bigger, I think it would be better to have that closer to the rest of things.
-
In fact, adopting the American style is such a fucking stupid ass thing to do that it makes me want to go kick my boss in the nuts.
Notably, I have now eschewed using quotations marks in my papers and have moved towards using italics if it's really necessary.
Aren't you American? If so, you aren't adopting the American style because in is intrinsically a part of you.
You are rejecting a part of your inner self. You are denying your heritage, right?
(My actual point is, I don't think you can say you don't want to adopt something that is yours already. An American can adopt the British practice of adding the superfluous "u" to color, for example. A Brit couldn't adopt it because they already do it. He could reject it, though.)
-
Putting punctuation outside quotes is called "logical punctuation" for a reason: it's the logical thing to do. Any other approach is madness driven by aesthetics and not reason.
To be honest I dislike the practice of even calling it "putting punctuation outside quotes". What it really is is "putting punctuation in the right spot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia
ashersky: what do you think about commas, periods, semicolons, colons, em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points? Which of those go inside and which go outside? Why?
Everything inside the quote.
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
Aesthetics matter. That's the difference between me and everyone else, I guess. Having the punctuation outside the quotation marks is jarring and ugly. It is an insult to the soul (if you believe it such things).
Do you think you should have instead called that "thing 1?"
-
In fact, adopting the American style is such a fucking stupid ass thing to do that it makes me want to go kick my boss in the nuts.
Notably, I have now eschewed using quotations marks in my papers and have moved towards using italics if it's really necessary.
Aren't you American? If so, you aren't adopting the American style because in is intrinsically a part of you.
You are rejecting a part of your inner self. You are denying your heritage, right?
(My actual point is, I don't think you can say you don't want to adopt something that is yours already. An American can adopt the British practice of adding the superfluous "u" to color, for example. A Brit couldn't adopt it because they already do it. He could reject it, though.)
It's not "mine"; it's simply wrong. So it shouldn't be done. And you do get to adopt styles, e.g., oxford commas.
-
How is it ugly? They both have something kind of sitting away from the rest of the sentence.
Well, it's subjective, isn't it? To me, since the " sits high, off the line, it doesn't feel displaced by being a pica or two further from the letters. The . though, that looks like it's floating on its own when it's separated from the words by ".
As WW pointed out earlier, the rule has some connection to typesetting. The whole world of fonts, printing, publishing, and typesetting is fascinating, by the way. Some novelists go so far as to pick specific fonts to match the books they write.
-
Putting punctuation outside quotes is called "logical punctuation" for a reason: it's the logical thing to do. Any other approach is madness driven by aesthetics and not reason.
To be honest I dislike the practice of even calling it "putting punctuation outside quotes". What it really is is "putting punctuation in the right spot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia
ashersky: what do you think about commas, periods, semicolons, colons, em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points? Which of those go inside and which go outside? Why?
Everything inside the quote.
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
Aesthetics matter. That's the difference between me and everyone else, I guess. Having the punctuation outside the quotation marks is jarring and ugly. It is an insult to the soul (if you believe it such things).
Do you think you should have instead called that "thing 1?"
I don't know what thing you are referring to, but I like that you've come around on the punctuation issue.
-
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
So if the quotation included punctuation of its own, you would type it as "Thing A.," "Thing B.," and "Thing C.?"
I got chills from typing that. I didn't even know this is allowed in English.
-
Putting punctuation outside quotes is called "logical punctuation" for a reason: it's the logical thing to do. Any other approach is madness driven by aesthetics and not reason.
To be honest I dislike the practice of even calling it "putting punctuation outside quotes". What it really is is "putting punctuation in the right spot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia
ashersky: what do you think about commas, periods, semicolons, colons, em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points? Which of those go inside and which go outside? Why?
Everything inside the quote.
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
Aesthetics matter. That's the difference between me and everyone else, I guess. Having the punctuation outside the quotation marks is jarring and ugly. It is an insult to the soul (if you believe it such things).
So you don't think it's ugly to write:
Here are the enemies of the forum user "ashersky:" A, B, C.
"Witherweaver," what do you think of "ashersky?" Can you believe what was said by "ashersky!"
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver—"though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver —" though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
Sure, you might find those aesthetic, but the point of written language is clarity in communication, not physical beauty. And I find nothing aesthetic about those sentences above.
-
Putting punctuation outside quotes is called "logical punctuation" for a reason: it's the logical thing to do. Any other approach is madness driven by aesthetics and not reason.
To be honest I dislike the practice of even calling it "putting punctuation outside quotes". What it really is is "putting punctuation in the right spot".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia
ashersky: what do you think about commas, periods, semicolons, colons, em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points? Which of those go inside and which go outside? Why?
Everything inside the quote.
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
Aesthetics matter. That's the difference between me and everyone else, I guess. Having the punctuation outside the quotation marks is jarring and ugly. It is an insult to the soul (if you believe it such things).
Do you think you should have instead called that "thing 1?"
I don't know what thing you are referring to, but I like that you've come around on the punctuation issue.
Even the American style agrees that what I wrote there is wrong.
-
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
So if the quotation included punctuation of its own, you would type it as "Thing A.," "Thing B.," and "Thing C.?"
I got chills from typing that. I didn't even know this is allowed in English.
I've seen ., all the time. It's not that uncommon.
Now, if they were "Thing A?" or something and listing them makes them "Thing A?,", that's weird.
-
In fact, adopting the American style is such a fucking stupid ass thing to do that it makes me want to go kick my boss in the nuts.
Notably, I have now eschewed using quotations marks in my papers and have moved towards using italics if it's really necessary.
Aren't you American? If so, you aren't adopting the American style because in is intrinsically a part of you.
You are rejecting a part of your inner self. You are denying your heritage, right?
(My actual point is, I don't think you can say you don't want to adopt something that is yours already. An American can adopt the British practice of adding the superfluous "u" to color, for example. A Brit couldn't adopt it because they already do it. He could reject it, though.)
It's not "mine"; it's simply wrong. So it shouldn't be done. And you do get to adopt styles, e.g., oxford commas.
Honestly, it's not "wrong" or right;" in this case, it's clearly based on preference. And if your boss prefers it, that's the way you should go, or make a better argument to him/her for why it should be changed.
Your oxford comma statement is misleading -- that isn't some arbitrary "American standard" thing. You were making an argument that the American way of doing X was worse than the British (European? Who's?) way of doing the exact same thing.
-
If I were listing a series of "thing A," "thing B," and "thing C," I'd make sure the commas were all inside the quotation marks.
So if the quotation included punctuation of its own, you would type it as "Thing A.," "Thing B.," and "Thing C.?"
I got chills from typing that. I didn't even know this is allowed in English.
This is correct. Language is powerful. It can (and should!) give you chills sometimes.
-
So you don't think it's ugly to write:
Here are the enemies of the forum user "ashersky:" A, B, C.
"Witherweaver," what do you think of "ashersky?" Can you believe what was said by "ashersky!"
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver—"though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver —" though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
Sure, you might find those aesthetic, but the point of written language is clarity in communication, not physical beauty. And I find nothing aesthetic about those sentences above.
If you had a reason for the random punctuation, then that'd be fine. I'm not sure why you need the quotation marks in some of these. In fact, it appears you added punctuation randomly to try to make a point.
If it's such an issue for you, rewrite the sentence.
Instead of:
Man, I really don't like ashersky's "point."
Use:
Man, I really don't like the "point" ashersky is making.
-
In fact, adopting the American style is such a fucking stupid ass thing to do that it makes me want to go kick my boss in the nuts.
Notably, I have now eschewed using quotations marks in my papers and have moved towards using italics if it's really necessary.
Aren't you American? If so, you aren't adopting the American style because in is intrinsically a part of you.
You are rejecting a part of your inner self. You are denying your heritage, right?
(My actual point is, I don't think you can say you don't want to adopt something that is yours already. An American can adopt the British practice of adding the superfluous "u" to color, for example. A Brit couldn't adopt it because they already do it. He could reject it, though.)
It's not "mine"; it's simply wrong. So it shouldn't be done. And you do get to adopt styles, e.g., oxford commas.
Honestly, it's not "wrong" or right;" in this case, it's clearly based on preference. And if your boss prefers it, that's the way you should go, or make a better argument to him/her for why it should be changed.
Your oxford comma statement is misleading -- that isn't some arbitrary "American standard" thing. You were making an argument that the American way of doing X was worse than the British (European? Who's?) way of doing the exact same thing.
It's wrong because it's an incorrect application of what quotations are being used for. It's quite obvious in a situation where a literal string contains punctuation. The argument is trivial; I really can't be held accountable if people don't see it, whether or not they are my boss.
Using or not using the Oxford comma is an arbitrary standard thing. You have to decide whether you want to or not want to use it, and you should be consistent with that decision. Except it's even more arbitrary than the commas and periods inside quotes thing, because there are benefits both for and against Oxford commas, while there is no reason to put punctuation where it doesn't belong.
Notably, there exist American publications that do quotes/punctuation correctly, e.g., O'Reilly's Perl book. Also, Wikipedia does it right, and there is some American journal as well.
-
So if you loathe Americans so much, why use the double quotation mark at all?
Brits use ' instead of " for quotes.
-
So you don't think it's ugly to write:
Here are the enemies of the forum user "ashersky:" A, B, C.
"Witherweaver," what do you think of "ashersky?" Can you believe what was said by "ashersky!"
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver—"though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver —" though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
Sure, you might find those aesthetic, but the point of written language is clarity in communication, not physical beauty. And I find nothing aesthetic about those sentences above.
If you had a reason for the random punctuation, then that'd be fine. I'm not sure why you need the quotation marks in some of these. In fact, it appears you added punctuation randomly to try to make a point.
If it's such an issue for you, rewrite the sentence.
Instead of:
Man, I really don't like ashersky's "point."
Use:
Man, I really don't like the "point" ashersky is making.
I will concede, however, that even the American style would generally force punctuation that is not a period or comma outside the quotation marks, unless said punctuation is part of the quote.
-
So if you loathe Americans so much, why use the double quotation mark at all?
Brits use ' instead of " for quotes.
It has nothing to do with America; that it is done incorrectly in American styles and correctly in other styles is tangential to the issue.
-
So you don't think it's ugly to write:
Here are the enemies of the forum user "ashersky:" A, B, C.
"Witherweaver," what do you think of "ashersky?" Can you believe what was said by "ashersky!"
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver—"though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver —" though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
Sure, you might find those aesthetic, but the point of written language is clarity in communication, not physical beauty. And I find nothing aesthetic about those sentences above.
If you had a reason for the random punctuation, then that'd be fine. I'm not sure why you need the quotation marks in some of these. In fact, it appears you added punctuation randomly to try to make a point.
If it's such an issue for you, rewrite the sentence.
Instead of:
Man, I really don't like ashersky's "point."
Use:
Man, I really don't like the "point" ashersky is making.
I will concede, however, that even the American style would generally force punctuation that is not a period or comma outside the quotation marks, unless said punctuation is part of the quote.
Which was Theory's original point.
-
This is correct. Language is powerful. It can (and should!) give you chills sometimes.
But that's awful. If you're talking about the progressive rock band whose name is "Kuha.", then it looks like their name is even more retarded than it actually is.
-
So if you loathe Americans so much, why use the double quotation mark at all?
Brits use ' instead of " for quotes.
It has nothing to do with America; that it is done incorrectly in American styles and correctly in other styles is tangential to the issue.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2011/05/the_rise_of_logical_punctuation.html
Again, it isn't incorrect. You may think it is illogical, but it is absolutely correct.
-
So if you loathe Americans so much, why use the double quotation mark at all?
Brits use ' instead of " for quotes.
It has nothing to do with America; that it is done incorrectly in American styles and correctly in other styles is tangential to the issue.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2011/05/the_rise_of_logical_punctuation.html
Again, it isn't incorrect. You may think it is illogical, but in it absolutely correct.
When laws are wrong, following those laws is also wrong.
-
This is correct. Language is powerful. It can (and should!) give you chills sometimes.
But that's awful. If you're talking about the progressive rock band whose name is "Kuha.", then it looks like their name is even more retarded than it actually is.
Is the name
Kuha
Kuha.
"Kuha."
"Kuha.",
I can't tell. In British style, I'd assume the band name is:
Kuha.
In American style, that's sentence doesn't work at all.
-
When laws are wrong, following those laws is also wrong.
Can you tell me why it is "wrong," other than you don't like it?
-
A quote that explains it better than I can:
According to Rosemary Feal, executive director of the MLA, it was instituted in the early days of the Republic in order "to improve the appearance of the text. A comma or period that follows a closing quotation mark appears to hang off by itself and creates a gap in the line (since the space over the mark combines with the following word space)."
-
When laws are wrong, following those laws is also wrong.
Can you tell me why it is "wrong," other than you don't like it?
Because it includes characters that are not part of the string as part of the string. When I say "wrong", I am referring to the string "wrong". The two strings:
wrong
wrong,
are obviously different. If I want to refer to the string "wrong," inside quotations, how do I do it? If the style is that punctuation inside the quotations is not part of the string, why should I magically guess that it now should be?
-
This isn't made up, by the way. We talk about a lot of IDs that are strings that can take nonalphanumeric characters.
-
When laws are wrong, following those laws is also wrong.
Can you tell me why it is "wrong," other than you don't like it?
Because it includes characters that are not part of the string as part of the string. When I say "wrong", I am referring to the string "wrong". The two strings:
wrong
wrong,
are obviously different. If I want to refer to the string "wrong," inside quotations, how do I do it? If the style is that punctuation inside the quotations is not part of the string, why should I magically guess that it now should be?
Under American style, then, you'd write it as "wrong,," obviously.
I understand that you don't like that and it is illogical. I've never argued otherwise. I'm arguing that it's still the established rule, that I love it, and that I will defend everyone's right to continue to do it as vehemently as possible.
-
This isn't made up, by the way. We talk about a lot of IDs that are strings that can take nonalphanumeric characters.
I don't even know what you are talking about, though, and that probably affects this discussion. I got my degree in creative writing. You (I assume) are a coder/IT guy/software engineer/etc. that uses letters, numbers, and symbols such as punctuation very differently.
That's a big issue here -- when the rules were made, there were no computer programmers in the world. When computer programming became a thing, they should have taken grammar rules into account before deciding that punctuation would be used in code in such a way as to cause this confusion, or the world could have agreed to change the entire grammatical ruleset to accomodate the few coders who existed at the time.
Why couldn't coders just have used other random symbols?
-
So you want punctuation like "this."
But consider punctuation with parentheticals (like this.)
Doesn't that look horrible? And speaking of, how do questions "work?"
Ugh, it's just so disturbing that way.
-
That's a big issue here -- when the rules were made, there were no computer programmers in the world.
This was already covered in the thread. When the rules were made, they followed the logical reasoning that people are advocating now. They only changed because of technical difficulties in the printing process.
-
Yay, grammar*! I use Oxford comma in an inconsistent way: only when I want to insist on the difference between the enumerated objects. Does that make me a monster?
*Or is it typography now?
-
So you want punctuation like "this."
But consider punctuation with parentheticals (like this.)
Doesn't that look horrible? And speaking of, how do questions "work?"
Ugh, it's just so disturbing that way.
The period goes outside the (). So do question marks.
So, how would you like questions to "work"?
It looks so horrible like that, though.
-
If you are against the convention of including periods and commas inside the quotation marks, you are categorically against the oxford comma, right?
American style: include periods/commas inside; ignore oxford comma
British style: exclude periods/commas; require oxford comma
Unless the Oxford in the oxford comma isn't the Oxford in the UK?
-
On all the technicalities I completely agree with Ashersky. Aesthetically, I hate ending a sentence with some word or phrase that requires quotation marks. I have purposefully rearranged sentences or modified them just so I don't have to end with that punctuation.
As an example, I might change
Complete the sentence using the word "belly."
to
Use the word "belly" to complete the sentence.
for the sole purpose of avoiding the period/comma thing.
Sometimes this can get a little sticky and just doesn't work, but believe me. I will try.
-
So you want punctuation like "this."
But consider punctuation with parentheticals (like this.)
Doesn't that look horrible? And speaking of, how do questions "work?"
Ugh, it's just so disturbing that way.
The period goes outside the (). So do question marks.
So, how would you like questions to "work"?
It looks so horrible like that, though.
It doesn't. But I guess that's subjective. It's really inconsistent to treat parentheses differently though.
A practical problem with putting the punctuation inside is that you can heavily change the meaning of a quotation, especially if that punctuation is a question mark or exclamation point.
If you are against the convention of including periods and commas inside the quotation marks, you are categorically against the oxford comma, right?
American style: include periods/commas inside; ignore oxford comma
British style: exclude periods/commas; require oxford comma
Unless the Oxford in the oxford comma isn't the Oxford in the UK?
That's a really poor way of summarizing. But your summary doesn't really match up with your statement.
Oxford comma is a separate issue which I've shared about elsewhere. Whether you default to it or not, I don't really care. The important thing is that you always include it if omitting it would be ambiguous, and always omit it if including it would be ambiguous. Or just rewrite the sentence so it doesn't matter, and go return to your personal preference. I prefer to omit most of the time.
-
If you are against the convention of including periods and commas inside the quotation marks, you are categorically against the oxford comma, right?
American style: include periods/commas inside; ignore oxford comma
British style: exclude periods/commas; require oxford comma
Unless the Oxford in the oxford comma isn't the Oxford in the UK?
Oxford is our Oxford, but the Oxford comma is not standard usage.
Oxford has form in this area. The Oxford English Dictionary generally favours -ize over -ise, but -ise remains more popular.
-
I'm inconsistent in preference. For example:
--prefer American style for punctuation within quotations
--prefer Oxford comma
--prefer color to colour
--prefer -ize to -ise
In all cases, one can argue that either option is fine, for any number of reasons. We only argue about these things because Internet.
It's simple -- if you support peace, equality, and printing presses, put your periods and commas inside your quotations marks. If you are against those things, use the logical style system.
-
I think putting punctuation inside of quotation marks looks ugly. And in most cases also makes the sentence look incomplete.
-
So you don't think it's ugly to write:
Here are the enemies of the forum user "ashersky:" A, B, C.
"Witherweaver," what do you think of "ashersky?" Can you believe what was said by "ashersky!"
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver—"though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
In one corner we have "ashersky;" in the other we have "Witherweaver —" though I'm not sure Witherweaver is healthy.
Sure, you might find those aesthetic, but the point of written language is clarity in communication, not physical beauty. And I find nothing aesthetic about those sentences above.
If you had a reason for the random punctuation, then that'd be fine. I'm not sure why you need the quotation marks in some of these. In fact, it appears you added punctuation randomly to try to make a point.
If it's such an issue for you, rewrite the sentence.
Instead of:
Man, I really don't like ashersky's "point."
Use:
Man, I really don't like the "point" ashersky is making.
I was putting quotes around everyone's name. Like when news articles and really out-of-touch people say Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson.
If you are against the convention of including periods and commas inside the quotation marks, you are categorically against the oxford comma, right?
American style: include periods/commas inside; ignore oxford comma
British style: exclude periods/commas; require oxford comma
Unless the Oxford in the oxford comma isn't the Oxford in the UK?
Again, I don't really like calling it the American style or the British style. It's silly that correct written English is a function of where you are geographically located in this day and age. I subscribe to logical punctuation, which is meaningfully distinct from the British style. You subscribe to something even more aggressive than the American style.
-
What is used in legal documents?
-
I think putting punctuation inside of quotation marks looks ugly. And in most cases also makes the sentence look incomplete.
This being the "On the Job" thread, I'll mention that I've come to associate the punctuation within quotations as the "Git commit" punctuation.
-
I think putting punctuation inside of quotation marks looks ugly. And in most cases also makes the sentence look incomplete.
This being the "On the Job" thread, I'll mention that I've come to associate the punctuation within quotations as the "Git commit" punctuation.
Can you explain this one? I've never really used Git.
-
I think putting punctuation inside of quotation marks looks ugly. And in most cases also makes the sentence look incomplete.
This being the "On the Job" thread, I'll mention that I've come to associate the punctuation within quotations as the "Git commit" punctuation.
Can you explain this one? I've never really used Git.
With Git, every time you make a change that you want to save to the repository, you must "commit" the changes. Every commit must come with a commit message, which explains your changes. When using Git through the command line or a bash shell, you specify your message for a commit like so:
Git commit -m "(My message)"
If you want a punctuation to appear at the end of the message when it's viewed in the future, you'd have to put that punctuation within the quotation marks. I've been using Git for my current research work, see. This situation has come up a lot for me.
-
Right, so that's natural. If you see something inside quotations, the natural thing to assume is that it belongs to the other characters (as a single string) that are inside the quotation. You'd have the same behavior of any kind of string handling for a message you want to appear somewhere.
-
It should be noted that logical punctuation doesn't always put punctuation outside quotations. You do what's logical, and sometimes punctuation logically goes inside.
-
It should be noted that logical punctuation doesn't always put punctuation outside quotations. You do what's logical, and sometimes punctuation logically goes inside.
Isn't there a rule where stuff like exclamation marks and question marks go in the quotation if they were originally included, but periods do not? What am I thinking of that works like that or has a similar rule?
-
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "parentheses)" inside quotations?
-
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "parentheses)" inside quotations?
This made me laugh and cringe at the same time. Do not do this again to me.
-
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "parentheses)" inside quotations?
I completely agree. Great suggestion.
-
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "parentheses)" inside quotations?
I completely agree. Great suggestion.
Although I'd have written it:
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "()") inside quotations.
-
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "parentheses)" inside quotations?
I completely agree. Great suggestion.
Although I'd have written it:
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "()") inside quotations.
You mean:
While we're at it, why not put other delimiters (like "())" inside quotations.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
-
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
The typesetter quote?
-
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
Robz? At least, he writes for a living.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
Just because people are numberish doesn't mean they aren't creative writers (http://ehalcyon.tumblr.com/tagged/poetry) too.
-
I also write, just about math.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
I did more creative writing (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10575.0) than math in college. However, I use more math than creative writing in my job now (hoping to reverse that soon).
-
Glad to see some writers coming out of the woodwork.
I use very little math in my life, nor am I very good at it. My uni had a class call "Essentials of Algebra" for folks like me to get my required math/science credit.
-
Glad to see some writers coming out of the woodwork.
I use very little math in my life, nor am I very good at it. My uni had a class call "Essentials of Algebra" for folks like me to get my required math/science credit.
Logic isn't just for mathematicians. It's also important in philosophy and rhetoric, which are probably more on the arts side of things.
-
It's wrong because it's an incorrect application of what quotations are being used for.
I would use this statement of yours against your own position. The purpose of quotation marks is to delimit what is being quoted. If punctuation is included in the material being quoted, put it inside the quotation marks. If not, leave it outside the quote marks. Any other course of action is not only illogical, but inaccurate, as regards the quote itself.
-
It's wrong because it's an incorrect application of what quotations are being used for.
I would use this statement of yours against your own position. The purpose of quotation marks is to delimit what is being quoted. If punctuation is included in the material being quoted, put it inside the quotation marks. If not, leave it outside the quote marks. Any other course of action is not only illogical, but inaccurate, as regards the quote itself.
I believe this is exactly Witherweaver's stance. Just popping in to lend support to the logical style. I've been bucking the American standard convention I was taught in my writing recently. I do think I was only ever taught to put "small" dangling punctuation such as periods and commas inside the quotation marks, but to only include question marks, exclamation points, colons, etc. inside the quotation marks if they're part of the quote.
-
It's wrong because it's an incorrect application of what quotations are being used for.
I would use this statement of yours against your own position. The purpose of quotation marks is to delimit what is being quoted. If punctuation is included in the material being quoted, put it inside the quotation marks. If not, leave it outside the quote marks. Any other course of action is not only illogical, but inaccurate, as regards the quote itself.
This is precisely my position.
-
""It's wrong because it's an incorrect application of what quotations are being used for." "I would use this statement of yours against your own position. The purpose of quotation marks is to delimit what is being quoted. If punctuation is included in the material being quoted, put it inside the quotation marks. If not, leave it outside the quote marks. Any other course of action is not only illogical, but inaccurate, as regards the quote itself."
So, this is accurate?
-
Except for the extra (unpaired) quotation marks, I have no issue with the way it is presented.
My point was about examples like this one from post 129:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox". Blah blah next sentence.
This is logical and accurate, as what is being quoted are the two words (twin paradox), not the two words and a piece of punctuation. Therefore, the words being quoted are inside the quote marks, and the punctuation stays outside the quote marks.
The other way is not logical, and is in many cases inaccurate, because the punctuation is not part of the quote:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox." Blah blah next sentence.
There is also the clarity that comes with the specific punctuation marks that end a sentence, the most common one being the period. If a period is the piece of punctuation that ends a given sentence, it should come at the end of the sentence. The very end. As in, last. Question marks and exclamation points fall in this category. Quotation marks do not. They do not signal the completion of a sentence, and they do not trigger a reset, if you will, in a reader's processing of the written information in front of him.
-
Right. The point is that I'm arguing for the former, not the latter, and you had suggested the opposite.
-
You've made that clear, especially in #131 above. I'm agreeing with you and theory, and disagreeing with the others (ashersky, etc.).
-
You've made that clear, especially in #131 above. I'm agreeing with you and theory, and disagreeing with the others (ashersky, etc.).
Was there anybody other than ashersky? :P
-
You've made that clear, especially in #131 above. I'm agreeing with you and theory, and disagreeing with the others (ashersky, etc.).
Was there anybody other than ashersky? :P
Yes, me. That's what he said: "(ashersky, etc.).."
-
You've made that clear, especially in #131 above. I'm agreeing with you and theory, and disagreeing with the others (ashersky, etc.).
Was there anybody other than ashersky? :P
Yes, me. That's what he said: "(ashersky, etc.).."
Double periods to end a sentence?
Upon reread, I suppose I was incorrectly putting sudgy in with ashersky. My apologies for that one.
My et cetera also included e, as he seemed to side with ash in #186.
Do note, though, that I have actually voted for no one, as that seems scummy without more data.
-
Double periods to end a sentence?
Sounds like a cruel alternative form of punishment for women who want to get out of jail.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
I earned a creative writing certificate in college, was the opinions editor for one campus newspaper and a columnist for another, and now write a lot as a lawyer. (I even used to write a board game blog, a long time ago.) So I write a lot! Can't just dismiss my views as "numberish".
-
Also unless people "strenuously object (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnRHAyXqYY)", I will split this into another thread. (It's almost RSP-worthy!)
-
I'm a big believer in doing it like "this", although I am bound to follow the stupid rules forbidding that.
What really gets me is the apostrophe. I just want to add " 's " no matter how many times the letter " s " appears at the end of somebody's name, regardless of whether the name was biblical or whatever.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
I earned a creative writing certificate in college, was the opinions editor for one campus newspaper and a columnist for another, and now write a lot as a lawyer. (I even used to write a board game blog, a long time ago.) So I write a lot! Can't just dismiss my views as "numberish".
What style guide does the Bar, or ALA, or whatever the national lawyer league is called, enforce?
What style guide was enforced at your college? Mine was MLA, which clearly requires periods and commas inside the quotation marks. Were you purposefully getting lower grades in college just to stick your middle finger up at rules with which you disagree?
(On a side note, if you think lawyer writing is creative, you are crazy.)
-
I'm a big believer in doing it like "this", although I am bound to follow the stupid rules forbidding that.
What really gets me is the apostrophe. I just want to add " 's " no matter how many times the letter " s " appears at the end of somebody's name, regardless of whether the name was biblical or whatever.
But you should. If a person is named Jones Smith, you can refer to Jones's name like that.
-
There is no style guide for lawyers, not even recommended, certainly not enforced. (There's the "Blue Book", but it covers citation format and not punctuation matters as far as I'm aware.) But I certainly agree that most American lawyers keep punctuation inside quotes.
If I am writing for someone, either at work or previously at school, I conform my style to whichever they prefer. When I am writing on my own - and I believe this is true throughout f.ds and my college newspaper work - I always use logical punctuation.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
I earned a creative writing certificate in college, was the opinions editor for one campus newspaper and a columnist for another, and now write a lot as a lawyer. (I even used to write a board game blog, a long time ago.) So I write a lot! Can't just dismiss my views as "numberish".
What style guide does the Bar, or ALA, or whatever the national lawyer league is called, enforce?
What style guide was enforced at your college? Mine was MLA, which clearly requires periods and commas inside the quotation marks. Were you purposefully getting lower grades in college just to stick your middle finger up at rules with which you disagree?
(On a side note, if you think lawyer writing is creative, you are crazy.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Some_American_.28and_other.29_journals_have_long_required_logical_quotation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Style_guides_are_in_flux.2C_and_even_American_ones_recommend_logical_quotation_for_precision
And of course lawyer writing is creative. Legalese is full of conflict, plot twists and surprise endings!
-
Also unless people "strenuously object (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnRHAyXqYY)", I will split this into another thread. (It's almost RSP-worthy!)
This is definitely RSP now. I'm the belittled minority (here) constantly being derided for believing in something many of you find illogical.
Sound familiar?
At least in RSP, those posts can't be upvoted for extra spite sauce.
-
I actually mean, you all owe me like 500000 respect for all the easy respect I'm earning you folks in the majority by being your opponent in this argument where I'm outnumbered by numberish folk.
What I wouldn't give for another creative writing major to join this forum.
I earned a creative writing certificate in college, was the opinions editor for one campus newspaper and a columnist for another, and now write a lot as a lawyer. (I even used to write a board game blog, a long time ago.) So I write a lot! Can't just dismiss my views as "numberish".
What style guide does the Bar, or ALA, or whatever the national lawyer league is called, enforce?
What style guide was enforced at your college? Mine was MLA, which clearly requires periods and commas inside the quotation marks. Were you purposefully getting lower grades in college just to stick your middle finger up at rules with which you disagree?
(On a side note, if you think lawyer writing is creative, you are crazy.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Some_American_.28and_other.29_journals_have_long_required_logical_quotation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Style_guides_are_in_flux.2C_and_even_American_ones_recommend_logical_quotation_for_precision
And of course lawyer writing is creative. Legalese is full of conflict, plot twists and surprise endings!
The AP, MLA, and Chicago guides require the American style. Those are definitely definitive, Important guides, even if you personally never have to work with them.
Robz, does, for example.
Edit, forgot link: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/08/punctuating-around-quotation-marks.html
-
It isn't the "American" style, and logical punctuation isn't "British" style. They both get used in both regions.
That extra link is incorrect about logical style (unless they're talking about something separate called "British style") because you don't always place periods outside of quotation marks. You just do what makes logical sense.
-
"Logical" and "Typesetters'" are good labels.
-
It isn't the "American" style, and logical punctuation isn't "British" style. They both get used in both regions.
But they are. I'm talking about their actual names, not where they are used.
Basically, drop your quotation marks.
-
It isn't the "American" style, and logical punctuation isn't "British" style. They both get used in both regions.
Well, I'm taking a British Literature class, and while my teacher teaches MLA in general he also teaches to put the punctuation outside the quotation marks, and he specifically made fun of us Americans for being silly about this.
-
Too me, it is logical to put the period and comma inside the quotation marks. Does that mean I follow a logical style?
-
It isn't the "American" style, and logical punctuation isn't "British" style. They both get used in both regions.
Well, I'm taking a British Literature class, and while my teacher teaches MLA in general he also teaches to put the punctuation outside the quotation marks, and he specifically made fun of us Americans for being silly about this.
So the British guy uses the British style rule. Huh. Weird.
-
Too me, it is logical to put the period and comma inside the quotation marks. Does that mean I follow a logical style?
It means you have a poor understanding of what logic is. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Proponents_of_typesetters.27_quotation_admit_it_makes_no_sense
-
Too me, it is logical to put the period and comma inside the quotation marks. Does that mean I follow a logical style?
It means you have a poor understanding of what logic is. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Proponents_of_typesetters.27_quotation_admit_it_makes_no_sense
Or we have differing strict principles of validity.
You are making this into a God/no God argument, and it's clearly offensive.
-
Too me, it is logical to put the period and comma inside the quotation marks. Does that mean I follow a logical style?
It means you have a poor understanding of what logic is. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Proponents_of_typesetters.27_quotation_admit_it_makes_no_sense
Or we have differing strict principles of validity.
You are making this into a God/no God argument, and it's clearly offensive.
So what is the logic behind putting things that are not part of a quotation inside of quotation marks? It literally makes no logical sense to do so.
I don't see how this is a God/no God argument. What does that even mean? God is by definition beyond human logic. The rules of grammar are not divine and subject to logic.
If you want to say "it is how it is [according to whatever style guide]", fine. That's objectively true. If you want to say "it is more aesthetically appealing to me", fine. That's subjective. But you can't say that modifying a quotation by including punctuation that wasn't originally there is logical. That is objectively false.
-
It's the God/no god argument because it's become you telling God doesn't exist because that's not logical.
I'm not modifying the quote by including "the period," I'm just using correct punctuation.
I wasn't quoting the phrase "the period" from anywhere, so I can it possibly be modifying it. To say I am is false. Tell me your logic there.
-
It isn't the "American" style, and logical punctuation isn't "British" style. They both get used in both regions.
Well, I'm taking a British Literature class, and while my teacher teaches MLA in general he also teaches to put the punctuation outside the quotation marks, and he specifically made fun of us Americans for being silly about this.
So the British guy uses the British style rule. Huh. Weird.
Right, I'm just saying that it seems there is a strong connection between location and preference.
-
Too me, it is logical to put the period and comma inside the quotation marks. Does that mean I follow a logical style?
No, it just means you're wrong. This is very, very obvious.
-
I mean, I can say it's logical to me that x^2+1 = 0 has real solutions, but I'm obviously wrong. Thinking something makes sense does not make it logically consistent.
-
ash, what's your argument beyond "tradition" or "argument from authority"? (Yes I know that sounds belittling but I can't think of a better way to phrase my question)
-
So what about parentheses? I never know when punctuation should go inside or outside a closing parenthesis.
-
I mean, I can say it's logical to me that x^2+1 = 0 has real solutions, but I'm obviously wrong. Thinking something makes sense does not make it logically consistent.
It's not obvious to me. Are you saying there's no way to solve for X in the mathematical universe? I don't know that, nor do I see any relevance to punctuation.
-
So what about parentheses? I never know when punctuation should go inside or outside a closing parenthesis.
If it's part of the parenthetical, inside. Otherwise, out.
-
ash, what's your argument beyond "tradition" or "argument from authority"? (Yes I know that sounds belittling but I can't think of a better way to phrase my question)
What's the counter? People are screaming it's logical not to. But no one can tell me why. I've already shown it doesn't always result in a modified quote.
To demand the period be moved outside the quotation marks feels like hipster contrarianism.
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
-
It's the God/no god argument because it's become you telling God doesn't exist because that's not logical.
I'm not modifying the quote by including "the period," I'm just using correct punctuation.
I wasn't quoting the phrase "the period" from anywhere, so I can it possibly be modifying it. To say I am is false. Tell me your logic there.
Again, God is beyond logic. This is punctuation, not something supernatural.
Your argument falls apart when you use quotation marks for dialogue, or for quoting from another written piece. Everything within the quotation marks is part of the quote (just like how everything within parentheses is part of that parenthetical phrase). Also, I think you should have used a semi-colon there anyway.
Did you read the section I linked? Here it is again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia#Proponents_of_typesetters.27_quotation_admit_it_makes_no_sense) It's written by somebody who is on your side, acknowledging that it's an illogical convention. It addresses all of this.
-
It's the God/no god argument because it's become you telling God doesn't exist because that's not logical.
I'm not modifying the quote by including "the period," I'm just using correct punctuation.
I wasn't quoting the phrase "the period" from anywhere, so I can it possibly be modifying it. To say I am is false[/ i]. Tell me your logic there.
Your period should be inside your italics, obv.
-
ash, what's your argument beyond "tradition" or "argument from authority"? (Yes I know that sounds belittling but I can't think of a better way to phrase my question)
What's the counter? People are screaming it's logical not to. But no one can tell me why. I've already shown it doesn't always result in a modified quote.
Bolded for emphasis. The point is that it often does.
-
This is pretty straightforward. "the period" refers to the string, "the period". "the period," refers to the string "the period,". They're different strings.
Your quote above talks about "the period," and says nothing of "the period".
-
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
-
I mean, I can say it's logical to me that x^2+1 = 0 has real solutions, but I'm obviously wrong. Thinking something makes sense does not make it logically consistent.
It's not obvious to me. Are you saying there's no way to solve for X in the mathematical universe? I don't know that, nor do I see any relevance to punctuation.
There is, but it's not a real number.
-
I have not too much to say here having not read the thread, but I will say this: as a Brit I was always raised to put punctuation inside the quotes, and always disliked it because it didn't seem to make sense to me. It seems much more logical to put it outside the quotes. I'm guessing that, from the poll results (and what I've seen online in general), putting it outside the quote is the standard American English, and honestly this is something I'd be quite happy to see cross the pond.
-
I have not too much to say here having not read the thread, but I will say this: as a Brit I was always raised to put punctuation inside the quotes, and always disliked it because it didn't seem to make sense to me. It seems much more logical to put it outside the quotes. I'm guessing that, from the poll results (and what I've seen online in general), putting it outside the quote is the standard American English, and honestly this is something I'd be quite happy to see cross the pond.
This is hilarious, because the reverse is true. It highlights that this isn't really a regional difference.
-
The Wikipedia article linked above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logical_quotation_on_Wikipedia) does an excellent job in refuting just about every point that has come up in favor of the typesetters' quoting style.
-
The fact that people actually include punctuation in a quote makes me shudder. The punctuation is not part of the quote. Putting things into quotation marks that are not part of the quote is something that's basically making false claims. "Dominion", and not "Dominion." is the name of the game. Also, if it actually was, would i have to write "The name of the game is 'Dominion..'"?
Oh, wait, of course it has to be "Would i have to write 'The name of the game is ´Dominion..?.´'"
-
The "Meninists" thread took two weeks to reach 7 pages.
Somehow an off-topic argument about quotation marks reached 6 pages in 3 days.
It's fortunate that Obama hasn't publicized his opinion on the matter, or the US would have a second civil war in a matter of hours.
-
The "Meninists" thread took two weeks to reach 7 pages.
Somehow an off-topic argument about quotation marks reached 6 pages in 3 days.
It's fortunate that Obama hasn't publicized his opinion on the matter, or the US would have a second civil war in a matter of hours.
This thread isn't in RSP. I have RSP hidden from the unread posts/new replies links because I'd just rather not get sucked into those kinds of arguments. However heated this discussion becomes, it's still about grammar. This is a much safer topic, and actually pretty fun for me to engage in (whereas arguing about equality and common human decency just makes me sad). Ashersky said earlier that he felt offended, but I hope he understands that this isn't personal. I still think he's a cool guy.
-
I was trying to make a srs bsns joke that didn't involve tied cats, but now I would like to add that the non-RSP people in f.ds are unnecessarily prejudiced against that board. With very, very few exceptions (and I can't even remember the last one), the discussion there is nothing but civil and informative*. There's no real reason to be afraid of it.
Of course, you are free to ignore it anyway if you know you don't enjoy that sort of discussions.
*Granted, that might be because there are so few people active there, and that mostly agree on the broad strokes of most topics.
-
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
I believe it's based on asthetics and typesetting. It's probably no longer relevant. That doesn't change anything, though.
To me, "period". is absolutely worse in every single way than "period." I want to say you could offer me a million dollars to change and I wouldn't, but of course I'd take the million dollars. I'd turn down one hundred, though.
-
The fact that people actually include punctuation in a quote makes me shudder. The punctuation is not part of the quote. Putting things into quotation marks that are not part of the quote is something that's basically making false claims. "Dominion", and not "Dominion." is the name of the game. Also, if it actually was, would i have to write "The name of the game is 'Dominion..'"?
Oh, wait, of course it has to be "Would i have to write 'The name of the game is ´Dominion..?.´'"
But the person writing the sentence isn't saying the game is called Dominion. at all. You are just misreading it that way.
I like a game called Dominion.
I like a game called "Dominion."
I like a game called "Dominion".
None of these is wrong, as specific styles demand one or the other when it comes to the quotation marks. One is clearly preferred by most, but by no means does that make it more "right" or "correct." It just makes it more popular.
And I will point out, again, that in none of those sentences am I actually quoting anyone or anything. So I cannot be misquoting or modifying anything buy including the period within the quotation marks.
-
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
I believe it's based on asthetics and typesetting. It's probably no longer relevant. That doesn't change anything, though.
Okay, so it's an aesthetic argument. That's fine. I think clarity of communication should be valued over aesthetics (but presentation is part of clear communication yada yada).
-
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
I believe it's based on asthetics and typesetting. It's probably no longer relevant. That doesn't change anything, though.
Okay, so it's an aesthetic argument. That's fine. I think clarity of communication should be valued over aesthetics (but presentation is part of clear communication yada yada).
If I ever thought following that particular rule would hinder the clarity of my sentence, I would consider alternative ways to write the sentence. I would never even think to consider breaking the rule. Why is that even a thing anyone would think to do (in general, for any rule)?
-
And I will point out, again, that in none of those sentences am I actually quoting anyone or anything. So I cannot be misquoting or modifying anything buy including the period within the quotation marks.
You keep bringing this up, but what about when you are quoting somebody? Are you going to be inconsistent then and revert to logical punctuation? Or will you stick to your guns and misquote?
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
I believe it's based on asthetics and typesetting. It's probably no longer relevant. That doesn't change anything, though.
Okay, so it's an aesthetic argument. That's fine. I think clarity of communication should be valued over aesthetics (but presentation is part of clear communication yada yada).
If I ever thought following that particular rule would hinder the clarity of my sentence, I would consider alternative ways to write the sentence. I would never even think to consider breaking the rule. Why is that even a thing anyone would think to do (in general, for any rule)?
It hinders clarity when it comes to question and exclamation marks when you are actually quoting somebody, and sometimes even when you're not. Example:
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First?"
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First"?
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First??"
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First?"?
The game is called "Why First? (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/131165/why-first)".
-
AfterreadingallthevariousbackandforthargumentsfrombothsidesIhavedecidedtoforgoallpunctuationandinfactremovespaceswhichlikeperiodsserveintheendnofunctionalpurpose
-
AfterreadingallthevariousbackandforthargumentsfrombothsidesIhavedecidedtoforgoallpunctuationandinfactremovespaceswhichlikeperiodsserveintheendnofunctionalpurpose
fjafas;fnaodnf;nfinoervo 3i95goernoknklvknvlfnp fj4390jf03ifn039n40niflkvselkjnlskejsbglk*
*Translation: After reading all of the various back and forth arguments from both sides, I have decided to forgo all English language entirely and make up a new language by which I will be the dominant Alpha male. Bow to me, troglodytes!
-
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
I believe it's based on asthetics and typesetting. It's probably no longer relevant. That doesn't change anything, though.
Okay, so it's an aesthetic argument. That's fine. I think clarity of communication should be valued over aesthetics (but presentation is part of clear communication yada yada).
If I ever thought following that particular rule would hinder the clarity of my sentence, I would consider alternative ways to write the sentence. I would never even think to consider breaking the rule. Why is that even a thing anyone would think to do (in general, for any rule)?
It hinders clarity when it comes to question and exclamation marks when you are actually quoting somebody, and sometimes even when you're not. Example:
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First?"
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First"?
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First??"
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First?"?
The game is called "Why First? (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/131165/why-first)".
I would write:
I have not heard of this new game called "Why First?."
Do you like the game called "Why First?"?
-
And I will point out, again, that in none of those sentences am I actually quoting anyone or anything. So I cannot be misquoting or modifying anything buy including the period within the quotation marks.
You keep bringing this up, but what about when you are quoting somebody? Are you going to be inconsistent then and revert to logical punctuation? Or will you stick to your guns and misquote?
Well, it depends on the context, I suppose. First off, I disagree that my end-of-sentence period is resulting in a misquote, when you know I'm putting it there to end the sentence. That said, in MLA, you can't end a sentence with a quote like that. It's run something like:
When discussing punctuation, eHalcyon stated that "in no instance should any single person with any amount of intelligence ever put a period or comma within the quotation marks if it is not part of the originally quoted text" (eHalycon 412).
As I've stressed, this doesn't even have to be an argument, because the whole situation is easily avoided, and is also why my following of the rule never results in a "misquote."
-
I would write:
I have not heard of this new game called "Why First?."
Do you like the game called "Why First?"?
Your first line is where ambiguity can come into play. What if the game title ends with a period? Yeah, it would be weird, but it's possible.
Your second line is logical, and it demonstrates the inconsistency and illogical nature of the convention with periods and commas. You put question marks (and exclamation marks too, right?) outside of quotation marks, so why are periods treated differently? Because it's traditional.
Anyway, I see now that you've acknowledged that it's illogical. No further arguments then.
And I will point out, again, that in none of those sentences am I actually quoting anyone or anything. So I cannot be misquoting or modifying anything buy including the period within the quotation marks.
You keep bringing this up, but what about when you are quoting somebody? Are you going to be inconsistent then and revert to logical punctuation? Or will you stick to your guns and misquote?
Well, it depends on the context, I suppose. First off, I disagree that my end-of-sentence period is resulting in a misquote, when you know I'm putting it there to end the sentence. That said, in MLA, you can't end a sentence with a quote like that. It's run something like:
When discussing punctuation, eHalcyon stated that "in no instance should any single person with any amount of intelligence ever put a period or comma within the quotation marks if it is not part of the originally quoted text" (eHalycon 412).
As I've stressed, this doesn't even have to be an argument, because the whole situation is easily avoided, and is also why my following of the rule never results in a "misquote."
So, formally, it doesn't matter because the citation results in you putting the punctuation outside the quotations anyway. :P
-
Someone is wrong on the Internet. Let's have a giant group discussion!
-
So I read your quoted wikipedia article.
It's clearly biased against punctuation in the quotation marks, and doesn't even try to present itself as an unbiased party. It's an essay full of arrogance, scorn, and contempt for uses of "TQ," and the quotes he presents for a supporter of the practice as showing it to be illogical is from 1920.
It lacks citations of any sort to support his ideas (unlike most wikipedia entries, which require them) and it even has a disclaimer at the top that states it isn't Wikipedia policy or a guideline, and may not even be a view shared by editors of the site.
It's basically an anonymous rambling about why they think "logical quotation" is better than "typesetter's quotation" and nothing else. Nothing definitive, legal, or even accepted by a national or international governing body of language, nor do we know if it was written by anyone of any authority whatsoever. (Which, I mean, it's wikipedia, so it's all about bucking authority anyway, right?)
I'm confused, I guess, about why you keep pointing to it.
-
So I read your quoted wikipedia article.
It's clearly biased against punctuation in the quotation marks, and doesn't even try to present itself as an unbiased party. It's an essay full of arrogance, scorn, and contempt for uses of "TQ," and the quotes he presents for a supporter of the practice as showing it to be illogical is from 1920.
It lacks citations of any sort to support his ideas (unlike most wikipedia entries, which require them) and it even has a disclaimer at the top that states it isn't Wikipedia policy or a guideline, and may not even be a view shared by editors of the site.
It's basically an anonymous rambling about why they think "logical quotation" is better than "typesetter's quotation" and nothing else. Nothing definitive, legal, or even accepted by a national or international governing body of language, nor do we know if it was written by anyone of any authority whatsoever. (Which, I mean, it's wikipedia, so it's all about bucking authority anyway, right?)
I'm confused, I guess, about why you keep pointing to it.
You hadn't read it when we linked it? We were providing examples in direct response to points you made, which you continued arguing without actually reading what you were arguing against? OK...
The quotes are taken from a book that is still in print. So what if it's from 1920? Are there new modern arguments for why always putting punctuation inside quotes is logical? You yourself have admitted that it's not. In fact, reading back, you admitted it earlier than I'd realized!
It's an essay about Wikipedia policy. Do you need a direct link to Wikipedia's style guide? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation_inside_or_outside
It's not an article so it doesn't have citations, but it has plenty of external links that lead directly to sources. Should I disregard everything you're saying just because you're not formally citing every statement?
It was worth linking because it addresses pretty much all of the arguments you brought forward with plentiful examples and links.
-
It talks about why that single, unnamed person believes what he believes. Wikipedia itself disassociates itself from the essay in its disclaimer. And yet, that's fine for that person. I don't care.
I think the problem is we are arguing past each other.
I don't care if it my belief is logical or not, nor does it actually matter. So arguments for why it may be illogical are not relevant to MY point.
I've never tried to argue specifically that the so-called North American Style is logical (although I've argued it isn't illogical). You continue to say it isn't, and point to people who agree with you.
But we aren't talking about logic. This is a discussion about a personal belief, and that is, like God, not a logical discussion (to paraphrase you). I sincerely believe that putting the punctuation within the quotation marks is right (and better), and you are arguing against that belief.
Logical does not equal right. Is love logical? No. Is it wrong that you love your parents, or your children, or your partner? You tell me. I say no, it is not wrong at all, even if it isn't based on logic. That is exactly the point of this discussion.
If you take out your "but it isn't logical" nonsense, I feel you have nothing to base your attacks on.
But I'm not the one arguing you are wrong -- I'm just trying to argue that I'm right. I've already stated both ways are "right," and that I prefer my way and believe it to be the better way. I don't have to convince you of that, and at least I'm not trying to belittle your personal beliefs or ostracize you for what you believe in.
-
If I had to summarize this thread, I would say:
"ashersky says, 'I believe punctuation should always go inside the quotation.'
"eHalcyon replies, 'What happens when we discuss such games as "Dominion", "Can't Stop!", or "Why First?"?'
"'"Why First?"?' ashersky asks. 'Shouldn't we put punctuation inside quotations in all cases, including the aforementioned game (that is, "Why First?")?'
"ashersky goes on, 'If I end a question by naming the game "Why First?", shouldn't I end with "'Why First??'" rather than "'Why First?'?"?'
"eHalcyon replies angrily, 'Are you really telling me that you should "end with '"Why First??'" rather than '"Why First?"?'"?'"
-
I agree that it's right according to certain style guides. That doesn't change that it's literally illogical. This is not an attack; it's a statement of fact. As you say, there are plenty of things that are illogical that are still great. I'm not trying to belittle you either, and I'm sorry if I've come across that way. Here are my arguments in summary:
- Logical punctuation is precise and definitively logical.
- Always putting punctuation periods and commas inside quotation marks is illogical and inconsistent (consider with how those style guides deal with question marks and other punctuation).
- There's no good reason to continue following that style other than tradition and aesthetics.
- The aesthetics are subjective.
That's all.
You've argued that it isn't illogical (though you've also stated that it is (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13364.msg495775#msg495775)) and that's what I've been arguing against.
PPE: @scott, there's more than two of us in this thread and I'm not angry. :P
-
- There's no good reason to continue following that style other than tradition and aesthetics.
Depends on your definition of "good."
-Your professor requires it or you will be docked points.
-Your profession requires it.
-The publication in which you are trying to be published requires it.
That's three more "good" reasons to continue following that style.
P.S. -- I think it's just as "illogical" to NEVER put the punctuation inside the quotation marks as it is to ALWAYS put the punctuation inside. But no one seems to care on that point.
-
So my primary job is making up various documentation on our quantitative models and methods. Basically, I edit and author math-type papers in LaTeX. But technical grammar and style guides are pretty relevant, too, as these are published to our clients and need to look professional, etc. I had this big argument with my boss that putting punctuation inside quotations is fucking retarded, because it is. I know that it's a rule in American English, but seeing as it's a stupid-ass rule, I choose to ignore it.
I basically think that, since the rest of the English-speaking world does this correctly, and we only have some bastardized form of the rule inspired by outdated typesetting, we should be able to choose whether or not we want to use it. (Like you would choose whether you want to follow a style that uses the Oxford comma or not.) Moreover, because we're a software company, we may want to refer to literal strings inside quotes, and in some cases those literal strings could contain punctuation. (In general I would usu some other syntax highlighting and not use quotes for this type of thing, but it could potentially come up.) It seems natural to me that any punctuation not part of the literal string should go outside of the quotes that contain the literal string.
Has anyone ever come across this "rule" being ignored in American publications?
(If any non-Americans are confused, we have this stupid rule where commas and periods that immediately follow quoted text are moved inside that text. So where as you would say:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox". Blah blah next sentence.
A third-grade English teacher in America would make their students write:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox." Blah blah next sentence.
It seems pretty clear to me that the former is correct, regardless of what textbooks say.)
I will point out that the OP makes it a point to frame this discussion as regional (calling a "rule in American English," stating that "the rest of the English-speaking world does this correctly," and his later question about use in "American publications" and his explanatory note for non-Americans).
And yet he was not lambasted in the slightest, even though you all have attacked me on the same idea (which I've conceded isn't completely correct, given what we've found from our non-American posters).
-
- There's no good reason to continue following that style other than tradition and aesthetics.
Depends on your definition of "good."
-Your professor requires it or you will be docked points.
-Your profession requires it.
-The publication in which you are trying to be published requires it.
That's three more "good" reasons to continue following that style.
Yeah, but why do they require it? Again, it boils down to tradition.
P.S. -- I think it's just as "illogical" to NEVER put the punctuation inside the quotation marks as it is to ALWAYS put the punctuation inside. But no one seems to care on that point.
Nobody disagrees with that point. Logical punctuation doesn't do that.
-
Logical punctuation puts the point in the quote (or whatever) if it's a part of it, and outside if it isn't. Pretty basic. On the other hand, if you say
I like the game "Why First?."
but also
Do you know the game "Why First?"?
you are being really inconsequent.
-
The rule is X, hence do X. Sounds logical (and kind of like computer programming) to me.
But that's an argument from tradition - why is the rule X? That's what I'm asking.
I believe it's based on asthetics and typesetting. It's probably no longer relevant. That doesn't change anything, though.
Okay, so it's an aesthetic argument. That's fine. I think clarity of communication should be valued over aesthetics (but presentation is part of clear communication yada yada).
If I ever thought following that particular rule would hinder the clarity of my sentence, I would consider alternative ways to write the sentence. I would never even think to consider breaking the rule. Why is that even a thing anyone would think to do (in general, for any rule)?
It hinders clarity when it comes to question and exclamation marks when you are actually quoting somebody, and sometimes even when you're not. Example:
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First?"
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First"?
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First??"
Have you heard of this new game called "Why First?"?
The game is called "Why First? (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/131165/why-first)".
I would write:
I have not heard of this new game called "Why First?."
Do you like the game called "Why First?"?
Wow.
The first example has changed the name of the game to which you are referring. The second example is contrary to your position - you say punctuation should go inside the quotes.
-
Eenglish duz not hav lojikul speling.
English bes not a language with logical grammar, either. Persons who have beed teached it have difficulty with its structure.
We can talk all day and night about whether a given style of punctuation looks "good" or "right," but arguing about whether it's "logical" or "illogical" is entirely silly. Trying to lambaste someone for logical fallacies (appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread) is disingenuous. We're not arguing science here. We're talking about a language that's so screwed up that none of the words bough, cough, rough, though, or through rhyme.
-
Using quotes to contain literal strings is a natural use of quotes. The rule is pretty straightforward: If a character is not part of the string in question, do not include it in the quotes.
-
So my primary job is making up various documentation on our quantitative models and methods. Basically, I edit and author math-type papers in LaTeX. But technical grammar and style guides are pretty relevant, too, as these are published to our clients and need to look professional, etc. I had this big argument with my boss that putting punctuation inside quotations is fucking retarded, because it is. I know that it's a rule in American English, but seeing as it's a stupid-ass rule, I choose to ignore it.
I basically think that, since the rest of the English-speaking world does this correctly, and we only have some bastardized form of the rule inspired by outdated typesetting, we should be able to choose whether or not we want to use it. (Like you would choose whether you want to follow a style that uses the Oxford comma or not.) Moreover, because we're a software company, we may want to refer to literal strings inside quotes, and in some cases those literal strings could contain punctuation. (In general I would usu some other syntax highlighting and not use quotes for this type of thing, but it could potentially come up.) It seems natural to me that any punctuation not part of the literal string should go outside of the quotes that contain the literal string.
Has anyone ever come across this "rule" being ignored in American publications?
(If any non-Americans are confused, we have this stupid rule where commas and periods that immediately follow quoted text are moved inside that text. So where as you would say:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox". Blah blah next sentence.
A third-grade English teacher in America would make their students write:
This phenomenon is referred to as the "twin paradox." Blah blah next sentence.
It seems pretty clear to me that the former is correct, regardless of what textbooks say.)
I will point out that the OP makes it a point to frame this discussion as regional (calling a "rule in American English," stating that "the rest of the English-speaking world does this correctly," and his later question about use in "American publications" and his explanatory note for non-Americans).
And yet he was not lambasted in the slightest, even though you all have attacked me on the same idea (which I've conceded isn't completely correct, given what we've found from our non-American posters).
I was corrected by that Wikipedia article. Did you miss that entire discussion?
Edit: to clarify: I was originally under the impression that it was an American style vs. nonAmerican style, when in fact it's not. There are a number of American publications that use the logical quoting style.
-
We can talk all day and night about whether a given style of punctuation looks "good" or "right," but arguing about whether it's "logical" or "illogical" is entirely silly. Trying to lambaste someone for logical fallacies (appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread) is disingenuous. We're not arguing science here. We're talking about a language that's so screwed up that none of the words bough, cough, rough, though, or through rhyme.
*gnashes teeth*
... You're right.
-
We can talk all day and night about whether a given style of punctuation looks "good" or "right," but arguing about whether it's "logical" or "illogical" is entirely silly. Trying to lambaste someone for logical fallacies (appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread) is disingenuous. We're not arguing science here. We're talking about a language that's so screwed up that none of the words bough, cough, rough, though, or through rhyme.
*gnashes teeth*
... You're right.
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141103235816/venturiantale/images/6/64/Phoenix_wright_objection_gs5_by_superaj3-d5fi5wh.gif)
-
(appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread)
Appropriately so!
I was trying to get him to explain why he thought what he thought, since he kept using the word "right", and he did, and it turned out it was neither of those things and now I understand his position better.
-
that is, like God, not a logical discussion
Please contain this to RSP. I would disagree with this quite a bit.
-
Eenglish duz not hav lojikul speling.
English bes not a language with logical grammar, either. Persons who have beed teached it have difficulty with its structure.
We can talk all day and night about whether a given style of punctuation looks "good" or "right," but arguing about whether it's "logical" or "illogical" is entirely silly. Trying to lambaste someone for logical fallacies (appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread) is disingenuous. We're not arguing science here. We're talking about a language that's so screwed up that none of the words bough, cough, rough, though, or through rhyme.
With words, their definitions have been chosen already, and we need to stick to them for clarity. For punctuation, it is small enough a change to not confuse people and it hasn't been chosen as definitively (i.e. many people follow another rule).
-
Eenglish duz not hav lojikul speling.
English bes not a language with logical grammar, either. Persons who have beed teached it have difficulty with its structure.
We can talk all day and night about whether a given style of punctuation looks "good" or "right," but arguing about whether it's "logical" or "illogical" is entirely silly. Trying to lambaste someone for logical fallacies (appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread) is disingenuous. We're not arguing science here. We're talking about a language that's so screwed up that none of the words bough, cough, rough, though, or through rhyme.
With words, their definitions have been chosen already, and we need to stick to them for clarity.
To a point. Definitions, spelling, grammar, it all changes (as it should).
-
Eenglish duz not hav lojikul speling.
English bes not a language with logical grammar, either. Persons who have beed teached it have difficulty with its structure.
We can talk all day and night about whether a given style of punctuation looks "good" or "right," but arguing about whether it's "logical" or "illogical" is entirely silly. Trying to lambaste someone for logical fallacies (appeals to authority and tradition have both been brought up in this thread) is disingenuous. We're not arguing science here. We're talking about a language that's so screwed up that none of the words bough, cough, rough, though, or through rhyme.
I don't think it's silly. English is messed up, but that doesn't mean we should just give up on everything and say "anything goes". With regards to this specific topic, there are a few different standards, with logical punctuation on the rise because of its inherent merits (e.g. logic, consistency, precision). There are still many people who adhere to tradition simply because "that's the way it is". No, this isn't science, but neither is it art or religion. The language is evolving and it's worthwhile to discuss the reasons behind it.
that is, like God, not a logical discussion
Please contain this to RSP. I would disagree with this quite a bit.
Just want to clarify, since Ash was paraphrasing me (though not quite accurately). God is beyond logic and beyond human understanding. That doesn't mean that we can't have a logical discussion about God, faith, and other elements of religion. It's just to say that standards of grammar do not constitute a higher power, and the arguments for/against styles of punctuation are not at all like the arguments for/against the existence of God.
-
So to branch out, what footnote practice have you guys seen in regards to punctuation? I generally put footnotes after punctuation, the idea being the footnote relates to the entire sentence or clause, not just a single word. However, if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg1, which itself is followed by a punctuation mark such as a comma, then I could be motivated to move it inside.
A quick search told me almost all style guides agree that footnotes go after punctuation,2 and in most cases at the end of a sentence unless there is a compelling reason to put it inside. (Footnotes inside parentheses go inside parentheses.3) Has anyone ever seen other styles?
1"garg" means "word". Okay really I just needed to use a footnote to illustrate. But really you could say "why did I need to read this after reading 'garg'? Why not finish the sentence, or clause, and then go to the footnote?". So maybe there's no good reason to do what I did here, and it would be better to say, "if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg,1 which itself..." or even "if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg, which itself is followed by a punctuation mark such as a comma, then I could be motivated to move it inside.1". Can footnotes reference themselves through a footnote? Cue appropriate xkcd comic.
2I.e., like this, not like that dirty 1 above.
3Like this.
-
that is, like God, not a logical discussion
Please contain this to RSP. I would disagree with this quite a bit.
Please quote the original person who made this statement. I even said I was paraphrasing him.
I'm also the one arguing this thread IS RSP.
-
So to branch out, what footnote practice have you guys seen in regards to punctuation? I generally put footnotes after punctuation, the idea being the footnote relates to the entire sentence or clause, not just a single word. However, if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg1, which itself is followed by a punctuation mark such as a comma, then I could be motivated to move it inside.
A quick search told me almost all style guides agree that footnotes go after punctuation,2 and in most cases at the end of a sentence unless there is a compelling reason to put it inside. (Footnotes inside parentheses go inside parentheses.3) Has anyone ever seen other styles?
1"garg" means "word". Okay really I just needed to use a footnote to illustrate. But really you could say "why did I need to read this after reading 'garg'? Why not finish the sentence, or clause, and then go to the footnote?". So maybe there's no good reason to do what I did here, and it would be better to say, "if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg,1 which itself..." or even "if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg, which itself is followed by a punctuation mark such as a comma, then I could be motivated to move it inside.1". Can footnotes reference themselves through a footnote? Cue appropriate xkcd comic.
2I.e., like this, not like that dirty 1 above.
3Like this.
I strongly prefer endnotes and am devastated you'd even suggest footnotes.
-
I don't honestly know the difference.
-
Oh, it just goes at the end of the section/chapter/whatever? Footnotes seem a lot more practical for most things.
-
RSP: Rules of Semantics and Punctuation.
-
Oh, it just goes at the end of the section/chapter/whatever? Footnotes seem a lot more practical for most things.
Footnotes go at the bottom of the page (generally) on which you noted something. Endnotes are listed at the end of the chapter.
Footnotes can cause some hideously ugly page breaks, as well as making it very difficult to read. I find nothing more off-putting than page after page dominated by the small footnote text. My favorite (and arguably the best) editions of Shakespeare use footnotes and I'd say easily 60%+ of the pages have more footnote text than actual text on them.
It's ugly.
-
since Ash was paraphrasing me (though not quite accurately)
What, it wasn't like I put your words in quotation marks and added punctuation that you didn't say.
-
Footnotes can cause some hideously ugly page breaks, as well as making it very difficult to read. I find nothing more off-putting than page after page dominated by the small footnote text. My favorite (and arguably the best) editions of Shakespeare use footnotes and I'd say easily 60%+ of the pages have more footnote text than actual text on them.
It's ugly.
That can be true in some cases, but I think footnotes are more convenient when there aren't a ton of them.
-
Oh, it just goes at the end of the section/chapter/whatever? Footnotes seem a lot more practical for most things.
Footnotes go at the bottom of the page (generally) on which you noted something. Endnotes are listed at the end of the chapter.
Footnotes can cause some hideously ugly page breaks, as well as making it very difficult to read. I find nothing more off-putting than page after page dominated by the small footnote text. My favorite (and arguably the best) editions of Shakespeare use footnotes and I'd say easily 60%+ of the pages have more footnote text than actual text on them.
It's ugly.
Well, in literature they can be used for humor (e.g., Pratchett/Gaiman in Good Omens). Endnotes wouldn't have the same effect there. In technical writing, it's preferable in many cases to have the information appear immediately, so a reader can just scan to the bottom of the page to see what they need.
I can see the reasons for endnotes, though.
But I think in terms of where the reference goes in regards to punctuation, footnotes and endnotes would follow the same style, so the question still stands.
-
How about this:
Have you heard of the best game ever ("Dominion)?"
-
I would write:
I have not heard of this new game called "Why First?."
Do you like the game called "Why First?"?
Wow.
The first example has changed the name of the game to which you are referring. The second example is contrary to your position - you say punctuation should go inside the quotes.
This is disingenuous at best. You are making the argument that, by including the end punctuation of the sentence within the quotation marks, I have somehow changed the actual name of the game, or your understanding of the name of the game. That seems to be many people's argument, in fact -- that the inclusion of a period or a comma within the quotation marks somehow physically/spiritually/genetically modifies the quote itself.
I call bullshit.
Let me try to make up a computermathrobot example. Imagine there's a program or something on a computer that requires the human using the computer to press a series of keys on the keyboard in a specific order, separated by pressing the enter key. Imagine those keystrokes are:
ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY
zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo
meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c
Now, I've been tasked to write a short instruction for the user that explains that they must input those three strings of keystrokes, with each one followed by pressing the enter key.
I believe that you all have argued against me by saying that the following sentence would be unclear or difficult or something.
To start the program, the user must enter "ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY," "zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo," and "meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c," following each series by pressing the enter key.
Is that your argument? Is your argument that the reader might accidentally include my commas in their keystrokes, thereby not succeeding at starting the program?
Because that means your argument is that I don't know how to use commas at all to separate a series of items (oxford comma discussion notwithstanding), and that I just wrote a series of items without commas at all. And how is that a logical argument to make at all?
Isn't the logical assumption that the commas are separating the three items? Or do you truly think it is more logical to assume that I do not know the basic use of commas?
If you read that sentence and actually would consider that the commas are part of the string of characters, that's your own fault: you may have assumed I am an uneducated writer who doesn't know what a comma is. Or maybe you are ignorant of the specific rules of the style guide I'm following. There may be many reasons you, the reader, make that mistake. But it isn't because I made an error.
(Note: I'm not arguing that the example sentence is good; I definitely would have written it differently, listing each item on a separate line, etc. I'm just illustrating my point.)
-
How about this:
Have you heard of the best game ever ("Dominion)?"
It's wrong for both sides of the argument. I also can't come up with a reason you'd use both parentheses and quotation marks, but...
Have you heard of the best game ever (Dominion)?
Have you heard of the best game ever "Dominion"?
Have you heard of the best game ever ("Dominion")?
Are all correct to me.
-
Someone told me, "To start the program, the user must enter 'ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY.'"
What string do I enter?
Edit: Or more specific to your example, the strings
ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY,
zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo
meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c
would have the same typesetting as your strings under typesetters' quotation style.
-
To start the program, the user must enter "ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY," "zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo," and "meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c," following each series by pressing the enter key.
And, god, this sentence is so confusing. Reading it, it's very, very, very hard to tell whether there is a mistake by the writer or not.
Edit: Plus, it just doesn't make sense. Why are the commas inside the same quote pair different? They look the same but they are entirely unrelated to each other in every possible way.
-
So to branch out, what footnote practice have you guys seen in regards to punctuation? I generally put footnotes after punctuation, the idea being the footnote relates to the entire sentence or clause, not just a single word. However, if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg1, which itself is followed by a punctuation mark such as a comma, then I could be motivated to move it inside.
A quick search told me almost all style guides agree that footnotes go after punctuation,2 and in most cases at the end of a sentence unless there is a compelling reason to put it inside. (Footnotes inside parentheses go inside parentheses.3) Has anyone ever seen other styles?
1"garg" means "word". Okay really I just needed to use a footnote to illustrate. But really you could say "why did I need to read this after reading 'garg'? Why not finish the sentence, or clause, and then go to the footnote?". So maybe there's no good reason to do what I did here, and it would be better to say, "if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg,1 which itself..." or even "if the footnote were to relate to only a single garg, which itself is followed by a punctuation mark such as a comma, then I could be motivated to move it inside.1". Can footnotes reference themselves through a footnote? Cue appropriate xkcd comic.
2I.e., like this, not like that dirty 1 above.
3Like this.
I think we need LastFootnote's opinion on #3.
-
Someone told me, "To start the program, the user must enter 'ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY.'"
What string do I enter?
Edit: Or more specific to your example, the strings
ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY,
zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo
meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c
would have the same typesetting as your strings under typesetters' quotation style.
From your actual quoted sentence: ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY would be my assumption.
In your style, it would say:
Someone told me, "To start the program, the user must enter 'ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY'".
Right? You really think that is better aesthetically? The final three characters are ' " . but in your style looks like an ASCII drawing of the black parts of Snoopy missing the outline.
-
To start the program, the user must enter "ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY," "zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo," and "meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c," following each series by pressing the enter key.
And, god, this sentence is so confusing. Reading it, it's very, very, very hard to tell whether there is a mistake by the writer or not.
Edit: Plus, it just doesn't make sense. Why are the commas inside the same quote pair different? They look the same but they are entirely unrelated to each other in every possible way.
I mean, of course it's a terrible sentence. It's written for the purpose of this discussion. As for the commas being different...I don't understand. I used the same font for all commas.
I'd probably write it more like:
To start the program, the user must enter the following three series of characters, separated by pressing the enter key once:
ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY
zR.we;l3-5*&%^a5-lo
meo.412834+)_2c,v23.23c
Or something like that.
-
The point is, in the typesetters' style, the sentence:
Someone told me, "To start the program, the user must enter 'ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY.'"
is grammatically correct for both strings:
ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY
and
ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY.
There is no such ambiguity in the more natural way to use quotes.
PPE: The commas are different because in (your use of) "ad,f93'.39*36/;93GF,BY,", the first two commas are part of the string to enter, and the last one is not. Being inside the quote suggests they're the same, but they aren't.
-
Re: creative writing
Worm, the best web serial (this is an opinion, but it is extremely popular) uses logical punctuation, I think.