Print

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

[ashersky]

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.)

[Witherweaver]

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?"

[Witherweaver]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[Awaclus]

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.

[theory]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[sudgy]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[ashersky]

So if you loathe Americans so much, why use the double quotation mark at all?

Brits use ' instead of " for quotes.

[ashersky]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[Awaclus]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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?

[ashersky]

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)."

[Witherweaver]

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?

[Witherweaver]

This isn't made up, by the way.  We talk about a lot of IDs that are strings that can take nonalphanumeric characters.