Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Voltaire]

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.

[Awaclus]

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.

[Tables]

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.

[eHalcyon]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[Asper]

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..?.´'"

[pacovf]

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.

[eHalcyon]

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.

[pacovf]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[Voltaire]

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).

[ashersky]

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)?

[eHalcyon]

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?".

[Kirian]

AfterreadingallthevariousbackandforthargumentsfrombothsidesIhavedecidedtoforgoallpunctuationandinfactremovespaceswhichlikeperiodsserveintheendnofunctionalpurpose

[Seprix]

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!

[ashersky]

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?".

I would write:

I have not heard of this new game called "Why First?."
Do you like the game called "Why First?"?

[ashersky]

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."

[eHalcyon]

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.

[Seprix]

Someone is wrong on the Internet. Let's have a giant group discussion!

[ashersky]

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.

[eHalcyon]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[scott_pilgrim]

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?"?'"?'"

[eHalcyon]

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) 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.