Quotes
Jeffrey Curtis
topic has ever arisen (although it probably has). Whenever I write a paper
or letter or anything of the sort, I always put my (emphasis: MY) punctuation
on the outside of quotes, and the quoted person's punctuation on the inside.
From what I've read in old style manuals and grammar books, one is "always"
supposed to put ALL punctuation on the inside of the quotes. For example,
let's say I was listening to a speech that went as follows:
Years ago, there were millions of widgets roaming the Earth. However,
due to the horrid process of deindustrialization, widget factories have
dwindled, and the number of widgets proper is in danger of reaching
zero.
Now, I want to write a paper regarding this speech. I'm shocked that the
original number of widgets was so high, so I write this so:
In his speech, Dr. Blah indicated that a long time ago, "there were
millions of widgets roaming the Earth"!
Which makes much more sense (to me) than this:
In his speech, Dr. Blah indicated that a long time ago, "there were
millions of widgets roaming the Earth!"
... which seems to be the "correct" style; yet, it seems to mislead the
reader into believing that Dr. Blah is the one who is excited about the
original number of widgets, and not the writer.
Comments?
--
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
+ Jeffrey S. Curtis cur...@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (708)972-2907 B41801 AT ANLVM +
* Computing and Telecommunications, Argonne National Laboratory *
+ "The opinions expressed above are mine only. Who else would want them?!" +
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Peter Moylan
cur...@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Jeffrey Curtis ) writes:
> I just started reading alt.usage.english, so I'm uncertain as to whether this
> topic has ever arisen (although it probably has). Whenever I write a paper
> or letter or anything of the sort, I always put my (emphasis: MY) punctuation
> on the outside of quotes, and the quoted person's punctuation on the inside.
Yes, it has arisen, and it generated a lot of discussion. A re-run of
this discussion is going to bore a lot of us.
This is of course not a flame directed at Jeffrey, who does not know
which topics are the overworked ones. It is a flame directed at those
who are against the setting up of a Frequently Asked Questions list.
Certain topics come back again and again, and it is only fair to
newcomers to let them know what those topics are.
It's true that the answer to a FAQ is often controversial. (If I
recall correctly, opinion was split over whether to put a period
before or after a quotation mark, although most people agreed that
exclamation marks should go where they logically belong.) That's
not an insoluble problem, because the FAQ list could contain
statements like "Not everyone agrees with this", or "There are
two widely-held opinions on this, and here they are".
Now that somebody has volunteered to put together a FAQ file, I
think we ought to back him.
Peter Moylan ee...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
P.S. I almost followed up with a detailed answer to Jeffrey's question.
That's the problem with a FAQ; the temptation to respond is almost
irresistible. Anyone who really wants my detailed answer is welcome
to ask by e-mail.
Ruth Milner
>Whenever I write a paper
>or letter or anything of the sort, I always put my (emphasis: MY) punctuation
>on the outside of quotes, and the quoted person's punctuation on the inside.
>From what I've read in old style manuals and grammar books, one is "always"
>supposed to put ALL punctuation on the inside of the quotes.
To me it simply depends whether you are quoting the punctuation as well as the
words. In your example, if Dr. Blah had made his statement with enough emphasis
or excitement to warrant an exclamation mark, I would have put it inside the
double quotes (and then, although I know I shouldn't, I am tempted to put my
period after the closing quote). If, on the other hand, the excitement were
only mine, I would put it outside.
Similarly, I don't feel that the mere fact that a quotation falls at the end
of my sentence, or clause, is enough reason to put the period or comma inside
the quotes with it. It seems far more logical to keep punctuation out of the
quotation if it wasn't there to begin with.
The rules of writing dialogue blow logic away completely.
Of course, logic doesn't hold in the English language anyway, with grammar,
punctuation, or spelling, so I suppose I shouldn't care whether it's logical
as long as it's correct - but it bugs me nonetheless.
Anyone know what the "always inside quotes" rule derives from?
--
Ruth Milner
Systems Manager NRAO/VLA Socorro NM
Computing Division Head rmi...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
Natalie Maynor
other punctuation marks in relation to quotation marks depends upon the
country you're living in. In the U.S., this would be "correct":
He called the gadget a "whatchit."
In the U.K., it would be this:
He called the gadget a "whatchit".
The U.S. rule above applies to commas and periods. With other punctuation
marks, the more logical U.K rule applies. My apologies to all of the other
English-speaking countries for not knowing which rules apply. I don't
think it's all that unusual, however, to know the rules of your own country
and the "mother country" without knowing about the sister countries.
As for the origins of the rules, I think the origins of the U.S. rules
are related to something having to do with printing presses. Sorry I
can't be more specific. (Why did I lie? I'm not sorry. Nor are those
of you who have read all this stuff before.)
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Ronnen Levinson
When I was a newspaper reporter, I was taught to place periods and
commas inside quotations, and semicolons outside quotations.
Example: The first ship was named "Pinta"; the second, "Nina."
As for the word "alternate," the American Heritage Dictionary,
without great fanfare, lists "- adj. 3. In place of another, substitute:
an alternate plan."
... Ronnen Levinson ...
Tom Craig
Ha! Yesterday I asked out news administrator to add alt.usage.english
specifically because this issue has been bothering me, and I see that
the thread already exists!
I know that the rule is "punctuation goes inside the quotes," but this
bothers the heck out of me. It leads to inconsistency and ambiguity.
Consider the following examples.
(1) The director said, "You stink. You are the worst actor in the world.
You'll never work in this town again." turned on his heel, and walked
out of the room.
Should the last sentence in the quote end with a comma or a period? As
written, nothing separates the first and second clauses of a compound
sentence, which seems wrong. Logically, I think it should be
"...town again.", turned on...
but I've never seen this usage. Is there no distinction between punctuation
within a quote and "meta-punctuation" in the sentence containing the quote?
(2) He said, "Really?"
Is this a statement containing a quote that is a question, or a question
containing a quote that is a statement? Logically, I think the former
should be written
(2') He said, "Really?".
and the latter should be written
(2'') He said, "Really."?
but again, I've never seen this usage.
I look forward to your comments, and to becoming a regular reader and
occasional contributor to alt.usage.english.
Regards,
--
Tom Craig dis-claim-er n. 1. A repudiation or denial
t...@cray.com of responsibility or connection. 2. Law.
612-683-3618 A renunciation of one's right or claim.
Mark Israel
rmi...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner) writes:
> Anyone know what the "always inside quotes" rule derives from?
According to the Fowlers in _The King's English_, the champions of
the "always inside quotes" rule defended it on aesthetic grounds:
quotation marks (or "inverted commas", as the British call them) gave
a nice round finish to a sentence, and following them with a humble
"," or "." would be an anticlimax.
The Fowlers vigorously advocated placing quotation marks according
to logic, not according to convention.
Mark Israel
I have heard the Wobble! user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
G Toal
:A quick reply on this already-discussed topic: The "correct" usage of
:other punctuation marks in relation to quotation marks depends upon the
:country you're living in. In the U.S., this would be "correct":
: He called the gadget a "whatchit."
:In the U.K., it would be this:
: He called the gadget a "whatchit".
Sorry, Natalie. Ain't so. Many of us do use that convention, either
from being logical people or from preferring Fowler's advice against
the received wisdom, but I can say definitively "It ain't so."
Graham
Natalie Maynor
I'm confused. Which convention? I find the U.K. convention more logical
than the U.S. convention. Your address indicates that you're in the U.K.
As I said, I'm confused. I also do not make my students adhere to the
illogical U.S. convention, even though it is given as the law in every
handbook of freshman composition I've ever seen in this country -- and
since everybody in our department is required to teach freshman comp, I've
seen many, many such handbooks and have written reviews for the publishers
of many such handbooks in progress.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
William F Phillips
In article <1991Jul25....@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> rmi...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
(Ruth Milner) writes:
:Anyone know what the "always inside quotes" rule derives from?
OK, I'm a little hazy on this, but I'll try. I picked this stuff up
ca. 25 years ago when I was into the history of printing and hand-setting
type, so it's been a long time...
Consider a piece of foundry type, i.e., type that comes in individual
pieces which are set by hand into a gizmo called a composing stick.
It is made of an alloy of (basically) lead and antimony, which has a
low melting point and is relatively soft, but harder (and somewhat
more brittle) than lead alone.
Think of a kid's rubber stamp set -- the sort you can make your own
stamps with by putting letters together (backwards!) in the little
slots on the base of the stamp. The characters consist of raised
bits of rubber that will pick up ink and transfer it to a piece of
paper (or whatever). Same principle.
Now, especially in the smaller sizes, such as you would find in text,
the raised bits of metal are very fine and delicate, which gives a
sharp, readable impression. Punctuation marks, especially periods
[full stops for our British readers] are the most delicate, and are
on the thinnest pieces of type (I forgot to mention that each character
has a different width, and so does the piece of type it is cast on --
so a period is about as narrow as you can get).
When a period is set at the end of a sentence, it is followed by a
piece of type with no character cast on it, i.e., a space. This
makes the period more vulnerable to damage, since there is no
raised character on one side. OK so far?
Now, watch:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
^^^
Observe that the period is protected from breakage by the `g';
``The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog''.
^^^
Here the `g' provides no protection; neither does the quotation
mark, since it only covers the _upper_ portion of the piece of
type. Thus, the period is more likely to break off its moorings
than in the example above. By moving the period to the _left_
of the quotation mark, like this:
``The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.''
^^^
we regain the protection afforded by the preceding `g'.
The same applies, of course, to commas. Semicolons, colons, question
marks, exclamation points, etc. clearly do not cause this problem,
which could explain why some readers found them apparently exempted
from the rule.
Now you know.
--
___ ___ _ | Bill Phillips,
(/__) . /) /) (/__) /_ . /) /) . _ _ | Friend Of A Friend
/__) (__(__(___ / / )_(__(__(__(_ /_)_/_)_ |
( ( ( | w...@world.std.com
Douglas West
"always inside quotes" rule:
>When a period is set at the end of a sentence, it is followed by a piece of
>type with no character cast on it, i.e., a space. This makes the period more
>vulnerable to damage, since there is no raised character on one side.
> The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
>Observe that the period is protected from breakage by the `g';
> ``The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog''.
>Here the `g' provides no protection; neither does the quotation mark, since it
>only covers the _upper_ portion of the piece of type. By moving the period to
>the _left_ of the quotation mark, we regain the protection afforded by the `g'.
Now that we have computerized typesetting, the origin of this "rule" is the
best reason I've seen for replacing it by a more logical approach to what is
being communicated.
G Toal
:>from being logical people or from preferring Fowler's advice against
:>the received wisdom, but I can say definitively "It ain't so."
:
:I'm confused. Which convention? I find the U.K. convention more logical
:than the U.S. convention. Your address indicates that you're in the U.K.
:As I said, I'm confused. I also do not make my students adhere to the
:illogical U.S. convention, even though it is given as the law in every
I meant that 'logical' punctuation is *not* a UK convention. We use
the same style as the US. One or two mavens (see bayla, I've got the
hang of it!) such as Fowler suggest the logical style, but the majority
of pundits disagree.
Graham
Natalie Maynor
>I meant that 'logical' punctuation is *not* a UK convention. We use
>the same style as the US. One or two mavens (see bayla, I've got the
>hang of it!) such as Fowler suggest the logical style, but the majority
>of pundits disagree.
Thanks for setting me straight. Is today's UK convention recent? I know
I've read many books written by people in the UK that use the "logical"
style. What about you Canadians? In editing some essays for a book I
was co-editing not long ago, I decided not to go for consistency but
instead to leave the punctuation alone. All of the U.S. contributors
used the "illogical" style. All of the Canadian contributors used the
"logical" style.
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Lee Crocker
BP = w...@world.std.com (Bill Phillips)
LC = l...@mport.com (Lee Crocker)
---
RM> Anyone know what the "always inside quotes" rule derives from?
---
BP> When a period is set at the end of a sentence, it is followed by a
BP> piece of type with no character cast on it, i.e., a space. This
BP> makes the period more vulnerable to damage, since there is no
BP> raised character on one side. OK so far?
BP> Now, watch:
BP> The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
BP> ^^^
BP> Observe that the period is protected from breakage by the `g';
BP> ``The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog''.
BP> ^^^
BP> Here the `g' provides no protection; neither does the quotation
BP> mark, since it only covers the _upper_ portion of the piece of
BP> type. Thus, the period is more likely to break off its moorings
BP> than in the example above. By moving the period to the _left_
BP> of the quotation mark, like this:
BP> ``The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.''
BP> ^^^
BP> we regain the protection afforded by the preceding `g'.
---
LC> What a wonderful explanation for this stupid rule!
LC> I find all kinds of illogical rules like this (in English, Computer
LC> Science, and other fields) can be understood by tracing a little history.
LC> One amusing example is the time I discovered that a minicomputer to
LC> to which I was sending data was throwing away '0x7F' characters. This
LC> character is called "rubout" in ASCII, but most micros treat it as an
LC> ordinary printable character (often a hashed box). I thought it was
LC> odd that the ASCII committee chose to put a special character at that
LC> position away from all of the other "control" characters at the other
LC> end. I later read that this was done so that characters on paper tape
LC> could be erased by puching all seven holes without having to make a new
LC> tape. It finally made sense now.
LC> I'm sure there are lots of other that's-just-how-it's-done rules out
LC> there that made sense in an earlier historical context.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker | "Get thee eyes of glass, and like a scurvy
l...@mport.com (Microport) | politician seem to see what thou dost not."
...!uunet!mport!lee | -- King Lear
73407...@compuserve.com
Harro Kremer
In article <1991Jul27....@world.std.com>, w...@world.std.com (William F Phillips) writes:
|>
|> In article <1991Jul25....@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> rmi...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
|> (Ruth Milner) writes:
|>
| The reason to write "quote." instead of "quote". is to avoid the dot to be
| damaged physically.
So this is another example in which people are forced to align themselves
with some illogical rules that are based on the limits of the current
technology. Very often, as in this example, the limits will disappear later
on. To avoid ever changing spelling rules do NOT make exceptions for
cases that depent on technical limits.
Wouldn't it be better and much more convenient to stop adapting to the
limits imposed by the technology and start adapting the technology to
our needs. I assume the human race is smart enough to do so.
Harro
--
___ Harro Kremer <kre...@cs.utwente.nl>
__/ \__________
| \___/ | Univ. of Twente, Dept. Computer Science, TIOS-group
|___ __ ___ | P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
| | | / \ (__ | tel: +31 53 89 3755 fax: +31 53 333815
| | | \__/ ___) |
| | Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
|_________________| - Janis Joplin -
Paul Wexelblat
started reading this group; with that disclaimer...
Is it common within this group to refer to "quotations" as "quotes"?
Why are "quotation marks" also referred to as "quotes"?
================================================================
I've been paid for my opinions for so long that I'm beginning to
think they're valuable.
...Wex