Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few years ago I moved several hours away from my hometown to a slightly more rural area. Now, I understand that every place has regionalisms, and that rural folks aren't necessarily as concerned with "proper" English as some others might be, and I will be the first one to admit that I drop my g's and say "gonna" sometimes.
However, this is an area that is noted for its excellent school systems, and there are at least 5 colleges within a 45 minute driving distance. Yet every day I work with people who say "I seen" or "I had went," I have worked with teachers and teaching assistants who can barely string together a grammatically correct, complete sentence. On every sale site I see: rod iron, chester drawers, for sell. The first time I saw "chester drawers" I thought it was a joke!
It's beginning to drive me a little bit crazy. I don't understand why seemingly intelligent, well educated people speak and write this way.
Please, just for me, move that period inside the quotes? (Ditto the comma.) Pretty please?
Unless it was intentional of course, in which case it may have been a bit too sublime.
I guessed you missed the conversation about the punctuation inside/outside quotes. Retriever put the period exactly where he wanted it, and I would do the same.
Periods go outside of quotes that only apply to part of a sentence, and commas go outside of quotes that only apply to part of the phrase. It is logical, and it is done that way in other English-language countries. It is the way I learned in secretarial school, and trust me, if you had a comma out of place, your letter was "unmailable" and didn't count toward your grade.
Periods go outside of quotes that only apply to part of a sentence, and commas go outside of quotes that only apply to part of the phrase. It is logical, and....
Interesting. The below is what I learned.
Though not necessarily logical, the American rules for multiple punctuation with quotation marks are firmly established. (See here for a brief explanation of the British style.)
Commas and periods that are part of the overall sentence go inside the quotation marks, even though they aren’t part of the original quotation.
Correct: “The best investments today,” according to Smith, “are commodities and emerging-market stocks.”
Incorrect: “The best investments today”, according to Smith, “are commodities and emerging-market stocks”.
(The original text quoted above is as follows: “The best investments today are commodities and emerging-market stocks, not domestic stocks and bonds.”)
I have to restrain myself on this forum - it's too tempting to write a post to everyone correcting their grammar, and never mind the spelling. I'd probably get myself banned before too long.
About spelling, I blame the texting; no one spells anymore. Worst, however, is the "there, their, they're," "its and it's," and other combinations like this. Can hardly keep from becoming another grammar Natzi on this forum, but don't think it'd be too appreciated by the recipients! (I'm with Retriever on the punctuation)
Though not necessarily logical, the American rules for multiple punctuation with quotation marks are firmly established. (See here for a brief explanation of the British style.)
Commas and periods that are part of the overall sentence go inside the quotation marks, even though they aren’t part of the original quotation.
Correct: “The best investments today,” according to Smith, “are commodities and emerging-market stocks.”
Incorrect: “The best investments today”, according to Smith, “are commodities and emerging-market stocks”.
(The original text quoted above is as follows: “The best investments today are commodities and emerging-market stocks, not domestic stocks and bonds.”)
That's one of the many things that has always bothered me when writing documents -- the standard rules I was taught just don't make logical sense. I agree it makes more sense outside the quotation mark, but the rules I had beaten into me say inside.
Yes, it's possible. But I simply cannot understand the mindset of not caring if you sound uneducated or unintelligent, especially when dealing with the public.
As far as (American) teachers are concerned, they should not be allowed to teach if they do not have a firm grasp of (American) English word usage, grammar, and spelling. They are teachers!
As far as (American) teachers are concerned, they should not be allowed to teach if they do not have a firm grasp of (American) English word usage, grammar, and spelling. They are teachers!
When my mother graduated from college, in the early '30s, she had to prepare for the oral portion of the teacher certification exam by obtaining a dictionary that had been published in England. Back in those days, you could not be certified to teach in NY state unless you affected a British pronunciation for spoken words. In order to pass that portion of the certification exam, you had to use pronunciations such as "la-BOR-a-tree" instead of "laboratory", "con-TROV-ersy" instead of "controversy", "al-U-minium" instead of "aluminum", etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
