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.
If we are going to be such sticklers for formal grammar, punctuation, and general writing style in this thread, if only for self-respect, we probably ought to make sure to put the period inside the quote.
Not all authorities agree with that. But printers adopted the practice because the dangling period often broke off the type bar, so they moved it inside. Publishers style guides were adjusted accordingly, and deviated from both standard and logical practice.
But manual typists had to use quotation marks for single unpunctuated expressions because italics were not an available option. So in office typing, quotes served as a substitute for italics. The sentence would then be punctuated as if the expression were in italics, and the period would not be part of the italicized term. However, if the quotation marks enclose an expression that by itself requires an ending punctuation, your style guide would be correct.
News reporters end their article with a "-30-." That sentence would imply that the reporters typed the period after the "-30-", which would not convey the information accurately. The copy within the quotation marks should be exactly and only the expression intended to be referenced. News reporters end their article with a "-30-". That is the only way the information can be expressed unambiguously.
Which of the following is correct?
A) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he made a ".".
B) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he made a ".."
C) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he made a "."
D) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he couldn't do it, because no matter what he did, doing so could not be described unambiguously according to a style guide.
According to your style guide, B) would be correct.
Personally, what I do is try my damnedest to not use quotation marks at the end of a sentence. This way I never have to worry about the punctuation.
Did you avoid this situation in your published work or did your publishers fix it, or did it somehow get past the proof-readers? Indeed, when convention causes an ambiguity, it can be reworded.
Not all authorities agree with that. But printers adopted the practice because the dangling period often broke off the type bar, so they moved it inside. Publishers style guides were adjusted accordingly, and deviated from both standard and logical practice.
Correct, British authorites would disagree. However, my referenced athorities that I listed are current and for American English and explained extraneous instances and reasonings for historical conventions stemming from typesetting practices, to which you alluded.
Quote:
But manual typists had to use quotation marks for single unpunctuated expressions because italics were not an available option. So in office typing, quotes served as a substitute for italics. The sentence would then be punctuated as if the expression were in italics, and the period would not be part of the italicized term. However, if the quotation marks enclose an expression that by itself requires an ending punctuation, your style guide would be correct.
News reporters end their article with a "-30-." That sentence would imply that the reporters typed the period after the "-30-", which would not convey the information accurately. The copy within the quotation marks should be exactly and only the expression intended to be referenced. News reporters end their article with a "-30-". That is the only way the information can be expressed unambiguously.
Which of the following is correct?
A) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he made a ".".
B) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he made a ".."
C) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he made a "."
D) I asked him to show me how to make a period and he couldn't do it, because no matter what he did, doing so could not be described unambiguously according to a style guide.
According to your style guide, B) would be correct.
In your examples, ambiguity can be avoided by reconstructing the sentence.
E) He made a "." when I asked him to show me how to make a period.
Correct, British authorites would disagree. However, my referenced athorities that I listed are current and for American English and explained extraneous instances and reasonings for historical conventions stemming from typesetting practices, to which you eluded.
Did you mean "to which I alluded"?
Since I wrote mostly in Canada, you'll have to excuse my "English" barbarity as reflected in my style. If you acknowledge that American and British English differ, it is a little bit over the top to post a criticism of a writer for using perfectly acceptable British form.
You mean you would clumsily reconstruct an entire sentence, just to avoid a controversy over whether to put a period inside or outside the quotation marks? Why not just write the sentence as it is, and punctuate it so the reader will know what you want to say?
Personally, I think of English as a flexible enough language that things can be written unambiguously without having to come in the back door of some style guide. It falls in the category of Poetic License, and it's one of the things that makes English so much more expressive and rich than most other languages that have enforced rigidity.
It's style guide, not style law. Rules are to guide the wise and command the foolish.
Since I wrote mostly in Canada, you'll have to excuse my "English" barbarity as reflected in my style. If you acknowledge that American and British English differ, it is a little bit over the top to post a criticism of a writer for using British form.
Ah, well there's the influence. Then I guess we shouldn't be such sticklers in trying to write formally - even in this thread.
Quote:
Personally, I think of English as a flexible enough language that things can be written unambiguously without having to come in the back door of some style guide. It falls in the category of Poetic License, and it's one of the things that makes English so much more expressive and rich than most other languages.
Ah, well there's the influence. Then I guess we shouldn't be such sticklers in trying to write formally - even in this thread.
The two primary reasons for writing formally are:
1. As a courtesy to readers who might prefer or expect formality, and
2. As a reflection of one's own self-respect.
Individual users of the language are free to do as they please, with the above caveats.
The two primary reasons for writing formally are:
1. As a courtesy to readers who might prefer or expect formality, and
2. As a reflection of one's own self-respect.
Individual users of the language are free to do as they please, with the above caveats.
Then we are only going to be a stickler only to a degree that is determined by any individual. Then, under formal American English, and I would think you would want to keep those periods inside the quotes, at least for your own self respect.
Quote:
In American English, periods and commas always go inside the closing quotation mark; semicolons, colons, asterisks, and dashes always go outside the closing quotation mark; and question marks and exclamation points require that you analyze the sentence and make a decision based on context.
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.
