Print

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

[ashersky]

- 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.

[ashersky]

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rest of the English-speaking world does this correctly, and we only have some bastardized form of the rule inspired by outdated typesetting, we should be able to choose whether or not we want to use it.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).

[eHalcyon]

- 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.

[Asper]

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.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

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?"?

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.

[Kirian]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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. 

[Witherweaver]

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.

[Asper]

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.

[Seprix]

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.

[Voltaire]

(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.

[XerxesPraelor]

that is, like God, not a logical discussion

Please contain this to RSP. I would disagree with this quite a bit.

[XerxesPraelor]

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).

[Voltaire]

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).

[eHalcyon]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[Witherweaver]

I don't honestly know the difference.

[Witherweaver]

Oh, it just goes at the end of the section/chapter/whatever?  Footnotes seem a lot more practical for most things.

[pacovf]

RSP: Rules of Semantics and Punctuation.

[ashersky]

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.

[ashersky]

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.

[Awaclus]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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.