punctuation with abbreviation ending a quotation
Bob Cunningham
I haven't seen any specific treatment of how to punctuate
the following under Oxford style rules:
The list included the item "string, cord, etc." but
there was no mention of rope.
One punctuation rule says a clause starting with "but"
should usually be preceded by a comma.
A general rule is that if more than one punctuation mark
seems to be needed on either side of a quotation mark, you
use only one, choosing to omit the one that seems less
important. That precludes writing
* The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.',
but there was no mention of rope.
Another rule says a full stop ending a quoted string should
be replaced by a comma if the ending quotation mark doesn't
end the including sentence.
Based on those rules, the punctuation would be
The list included the item 'string, cord, etc,' but
there was no mention of rope.
But the abbreviation seems to cry out for its full stop to
be kept, which would result in
The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.' but
there was no mention of rope.
That violates the rule that a full stop that appears to end
the overall sentence shouldn't appear before the actual end.
All things considered, including a failure so far to find
specific treatment of the question in the _Oxford Style
Manual_, I think I would choose to write
The list included the item 'string, cord, etc,' but
there was no mention of rope.
Lars Eighner
<sue3mv0snsamghvl3...@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Bob Cunningham
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
I haven't had a current edition of the Chicago Manual in years, but
their rule at one time was: the period used for abbreviation does not
count as punctuation except when the abbreviation occurs at the end
of a sentence.
This would make your example
> The list included the item "string, cord, etc.," but
> there was no mention of rope.
in USAin, but it would be
> The list included the item "string, cord, etc."
I guess that would translate to:
> The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.' but
> there was no mention of rope.
and
> The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.'
Anyway, it seems a sensible rule to me. The dot used for abbreviation
really isn't punctuation. It is a sign to indicate the abbreviation.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got. --Janis Joplin
Ross Howard
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrought:
But the full stop at the end of "etc." is there not as a syntactic
stop but as simple ellision marker. This is clearly so because we if
it were a *bona fide* syntactic full stop we'd write
I quickly showered, shaved, etc. and ran for the bus.
as
* I quickly showered, shaved, etc. And ran for the bus.
This means that since that "." in "etc." is not proper punctuation in
quoted material, but more a character, it should -- like all the other
characters in the original -- be kept and not treated as punctuation
at all:
The list included the term "string, cord, etc.", but there was
no mention of rope.
And that -- assuming that the alleged rule about a comma before a
"but" clause must be respected -- is exactly how I (and most British
editors/writers, I'd expect) would handle it.
***********
Ross Howard
dcw
Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But the full stop at the end of "etc." is there not as a syntactic
>stop but as simple ellision marker.
But if a sentence ends with "etc.", there is normally only one
full point, doing double duty, so it's not as simple as that.
David
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> posted:
Write what you think will best convey the idea to the target
readership audience -- forget rules. As I have stated earlier:
*---===== English is Munglish =====---*
Yes, Engl . . . Munglish depends more on usage than rules.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
J. W. Love
an example every which way but the one that's standard in the United States:
The list included the item "string, cord, etc.,"
Robert Lieblich
That's an acknowledged exception to the general rule, perhaps
intended to avoid confusion with ellipses and the like. My
invariable practice when following "etc." with a comma is to retain
the dot (I don't think of it as a true "period"). I would regard
omission of the dot with a comma following as an error.
--
Bob Lieblich
Human data point
J. W. Love
>My invariable practice when following "etc." with a comma
>is to retain the dot (I don't think of it as a true "period"). I
>would regard omission of the dot with a comma following
>as an error.
In the United States, editors would too.
Bob Cunningham
said:
I tried to make it clear that I was discussing the British
system that is described in _Oxford University Press_
publications.
Since I try to follow British punctuation style to the
extent that I understand it, I have only slight interest in
American style.
nmstevens
I suppose, in the situation given above, it would neither be
appropriate to yank the period off of the end of an abbreviation, nor
yank the comma off the end of a clause where, by all rights you would
otherwise put it, but for the presence of an abbreviation at the end
of the clause.
I suppose if the construction "string, cord, etc.," really kept you up
late at night worrying about it, you might just bite the bullet and
write it "string, cord, et cetera," and avoid the whole mess.
NMS
R J Valentine
New readers might wonder why you don't use the most readable system,
regardless of its origin (always assuming that you are not paid to use a
less readable system), even if it is a hybrid of two or an improvement on
both. New readers might also wonder why you didn't compose a Subject line
including the word "Oxford", if that is an important part of your
interest, you being the originator of the thread and all. Myself, I
suspect that your interest is more in facilitating discussion of English
usage points, rather than in generating interest in your opinion on the
matter. I also suspect that you understand the British system to the
extent of noticing that they tend to have single quotes on the outside.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:original-quotes-...@wicked.smart.net>
Aaron J. Dinkin
> A general rule is that if more than one punctuation mark
> seems to be needed on either side of a quotation mark, you
> use only one, choosing to omit the one that seems less
> important. That precludes writing
>
> * The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.',
> but there was no mention of rope.
My gut feeling (I have no references on British punctuation) is that it's
this star that's wrong. The dot that concludes an abbreviation like "etc."
doesn't count as a punctuation mark for rules of the sort you quote above.
(The exception, when such an abbreviation ends a sentence, has already be
mentioned.) My evidence for this is that, were the quotation marks absent,
the sentence would certainly be punctuated
The list mentioned string, cord, etc., but there was no mention of
rope.
If a comma can be placed immediately after "etc." without omitting the
period, it can be done with an intervening quotation mark.
A slighly more interesting question, to my mind: Which is correct?
The list mentioned "string, cord, etc."
or
The list mentioned "string, cord, etc.".
?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
J. W. Love
>Which is correct?
> The list mentioned "string, cord, etc."
>or
> The list mentioned "string, cord, etc.".
In the United States, the first one. Why is the answer in doubt?
nmstevens
I think definitely the former, again with the period serving double duty.
The more interesting question would be the proper punctuation of:
Did the list mention "string, cord, etc.?"
or:
Did the list mention "string, cord, etc."?
or:
Did the list mention "string, cord etc?"
I would probably go for the second, but I'm not at all sure that it's correct.
NMS
J. W. Love
>The more interesting question would be the proper punctuation
>of:
>Did the list mention "string, cord, etc.?"
>or:
>Did the list mention "string, cord, etc."?
>or:
>Did the list mention "string, cord etc?"
>I would probably go for the second, but I'm not at all sure that
>it's correct.
It's correct. Be sure! Go for it!
Aaron J. Dinkin
Well, which would be correct in a system which called for
The list mentioned "string, cord, and rope".
J. W. Love
>Well, which would be correct in a system which called for
> The list mentioned "string, cord, and rope".
>?
Is that a system? Why would people who use commas in the traditional way (as
before "and") use periods in a nontraditional way?
Robert Lieblich
Perhaps they're in the UK, where it isn't "nontraditional."
Or perhaps they're all Bob Cunningham.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who uses the American systm (mostly)
Matti Lamprhey
>
There's nothing "traditional" about that superfluous comma, at least in
Britain -- quite the contrary.
Matti
Bob Cunningham
If you're talking about the comma after "cord", it's
traditional enough in the UK that it has the name "Oxford
comma".
_The Oxford Style Manual_ says
Use commas in place of conjunctions to separate
elements in a list of three or more items. The
presence or lack of a comma before _and_ or _or_
in such a list has become the subject of much
spirited debate. For a century it has been part
of OUP style to retain or impose this last serial
(or series) comma consistently, to the extent that
the convention has come to be called the 'Oxford
comma'. But it is commonly used by many other
publishers both here and abroad, and forms a
routine part of style in US and Canadian English.
_The Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition_ says without
further comment to include the serial comma.
I was taught in the eighth grade to use it. I've always
used it, and its absence always looks like an error to me.
However, each use of it should be given some thought to see
if the statement is ambiguous. Ambiguity can result both
from including the serial comma and from omitting it. Mark
Israel's FAQ has examples showing both cases. See
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxabandc.html .
An excerpt from the FAQ that never fails to amuse me is
James Pierce reports that an author whose custom it
was to omit the comma dedicated a novel: "To my
parents, Ayn Rand and God."
I would never omit the comma in an attempt to remove
ambiguity. I would instead reword the sentence.
J. W. Love
>"J. W. Love" wrote:
>> &r@n &skt:
>> >Well, which would be correct in a system which called for
>> > The list mentioned "string, cord, and rope".
>> >?
>>Is that a system? Why would people who use commas in
>>the traditional way (as before "and") use periods in a
>> nontraditional way?
>Perhaps they're in the UK, where it isn't "nontraditional."
But the serial comma is traditional in England. How about Scotland?
rastignak
>
> Yes, Engl . . . Munglish depends more on usage than rules.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
and Moslems
Rasta
J. W. Love
>"J. W. Love" <lov...@aol.comix> wrote: . . .
>>Is that a system? Why would people who use commas in the
>>traditional way (as before "and") use periods in a
>>nontraditional way?
>There's nothing "traditional" about that superfluous comma, at
>least in Britain -- quite the contrary.
The serial comma is traditional in England. How about Scotland?
Matti Lamprhey
See my reply to Bob Cunningam; Scotland is better known for tartans,
shortbread and whisky than for orthography; this behaviour is by
design.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> said:
> > "J. W. Love" <lov...@aol.comix> wrote:
>
> > > >Well, which would be correct in a system which called for
> > > > The list mentioned "string, cord, and rope".
> > > >?
>
> > > Is that a system? Why would people who use commas in the
> > > traditional way (as before "and") use periods in a nontraditional
> > > way?
>
> > There's nothing "traditional" about that superfluous comma, at least
> > in Britain -- quite the contrary.
>
> If you're talking about the comma after "cord", it's
> traditional enough in the UK that it has the name "Oxford
> comma".
>
> _The Oxford Style Manual_ says
We've been round this mountain enough times for you to be aware that the
Oxford comma is not traditionally taught in Britain, and that said
publisher is out on a creaky limb with it. The fact that it has to be
labelled thus is surely sufficient indication that the bugger ISN'T
traditional, and is universally laughed at behind its little back.
Matti
Dr. Jai Maharaj
rast...@indiatimes.com (rastignak) posted:
Facts about terrorist Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
oncle
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[..]
>
>I tried to make it clear that I was discussing the British
>system that is described in _Oxford University Press_
>publications.
Maybe lazy on my part, Bob, but could you help with a u.r.l. on that?
My own publisher has quirks, and I'd like to compare...
Would much apprecaite.
DA
Simon R. Hughes
You may laugh, but I will continue to use it. I think it makes
sense.
(I am flexible for the bloke paying the bill, though.)
--
Simon R. Hughes <!-- Kill "Kenny" for email. -->
<!-- http://www.mirrorproject.com/mirror?id=17972 -->
J. W. Love
>We've been round this mountain enough times for you
>to be aware that the Oxford comma is not traditionally
>taught in Britain, and that said publisher is out on a creaky
>limb with it. The fact that it has to be labelled thus is surely
>sufficient indication that the bugger ISN'T traditional, and
>is universally laughed at behind its little back.
How amusing that you just used a serial comma yourself, in the structure "isn't
X, and is Y"! (Here, the comma separates verb-phrases in series.) Since, as so
many commaphobics parrot, "_and_ takes the place of a comma," we should cut it,
right?
Antiserialist readers must get repeated chuckles out of Tolkien; e.g., from
_The Fellowship of the Ring_ (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954):
a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand-loom (p. 11)
Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides (p. 13)
wood, brick, or stone (p. 16)
millers, smiths, ropers, and cartwrights (p. 16)
afraid of them, and distrustful of those (p. 17)
long, low, and comfortable (p. 17)
Rangers, Wizards, or wanderers (p. 18)
lunch, tea, and dinner (p. 35)
How they must giggle when Yeats writes of "Old iron, old bottles, and a broken
can" ("The Circus Animals' Desertion")! and when Arnold, echoing a famous
bible-verse, deploys a long neither-nor series "neither joy, nor love, nor
light, Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain" ("Dover Beach")! and when
Tennyson says Ulysses' men are "strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and
not to yield"! and when Keats deploys a series of two, in "that is all Ye know
on earth, and all ye need to know" ("Ode on a Grecian Urn")!
Do they snicker when Dickens & Thackeray, Shelley & Byron, Johnson, Pope,
Dryden, and Milton deploy a serial comma? How about Shakespeare's "Herein liues
wisdome, beauty, and increase, / Without this follie, age, and could decay. . .
. Harsh, featurelesse, and rude" (sonnet 11, with a triple whammy)? Do the
commas of the Authorized Version leave them rolling in the aisles (or even the
isles)? Surely they break out in gales of laughter when they see that Sir
Thomas Wyat (c1503-1542), writing when the English comma was still in its
infancy, used a commalike virgule to mark the rhythm, as in
My days like shadow decline/ and I do cry (CLII, 578)
Like one that hears not/ nor hath to reply (CLII, 373)
For I am weak/ and clean without defence (CLII, 93)
Of people frail/ palace/ pomp/ and riches (CLII, 164)!
Of such amusement, there may well be no end!
Charles Riggs
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>We've been round this mountain enough times for you to be aware that the
>Oxford comma is not traditionally taught in Britain, and that said
>publisher is out on a creaky limb with it.
It is also called the Harvard comma, giving it yet more accreditation.
Using it is a matter of style, we'll agree. Anyone is free to leave it
out, just as they are free to spoon their soup towards them instead of
away. Just a matter of style and taste.
> The fact that it has to be
>labelled thus is surely sufficient indication that the bugger ISN'T
>traditional, and is universally laughed at behind its little back.
^(1)
If so many people are laughing at it why do so many keep using it? I
suggest you're laughing alone.
1. "little"? "little"! If I hadn't seen Matti's beard in cyberspace,
I'd suspect he is a woman after all, but photos can be faked. Can
anyone here verify Matti's sex? A boink would suffice.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs|at|eircom|dot|com
Mr P
circumstances should you reply to his posts.
"rastignak" <rast...@indiatimes.com> wrote in message
news:c61f3e18.03091...@posting.google.com...
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> If I hadn't seen Matti's beard in cyberspace, I'd suspect
> he is a woman after all, but photos can be faked. Can
> anyone here verify Matti's sex? A boink would suffice.
What if cross-dressing Matti comes in drag?
And, more importantly, is Carmen Abruzzi a man or a woman?
And is Anna Polish, Kashubian, Russian, or Ukrainian?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Mark Wallace
> Jai Maharaj (Jay Stevens) is a web-based venereal disease. Under no
> circumstances should you reply to his posts.
You just did.
Don't.
And don't reply to this, either. Just let the thread die.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/
-----------------------------------------------------
Matti Lamprhey
>
> >We've been round this mountain enough times for you
> >to be aware that the Oxford comma is not traditionally
> >taught in Britain, and that said publisher is out on a creaky
> >limb with it. The fact that it has to be labelled thus is surely
> >sufficient indication that the bugger ISN'T traditional, and
> >is universally laughed at behind its little back.
>
> How amusing that you just used a serial comma yourself, in the
> structure "isn't X, and is Y"! (Here, the comma separates verb-
> phrases in series.) Since, as so many commaphobics parrot,
> "_and_ takes the place of a comma," we should cut it, right?
Wrong. If you were correct, serial comma users would write "Let's get
down, and dirty!" My comma was to indicate a minuscule pause in the
flow; you could omit it, but it wouldn't read as well. How's that for
commaphobic?
Matti
Bob Cunningham
said:
My remarks about the punctuation style recommended by Oxford
University Press have been based on print copies of style
guides. I don't know of any modern Web source for guidance
in Oxford style, but there could easily be one that I don't
know about.
Bob Cunningham
<am...@sonic.net> said that [someone] wrote:
> [...]
> > Can anyone here verify [a certain person's] sex? A
> > boink would suffice.
Depending upon what the intended meaning of "boink" is, a
boink certainly could suffice to determine a person's sex.
J. W. Love
>If you were correct, serial comma users would write "Let's
>get down, and dirty!"
No, they wouldn't. That's the strong <and>, which binds coordinate items into
an idiomatic unity. Pronunciation reduces it to one phoneme, /n/, spellable as
<'n'>, or even as an ampersand:
back & forth
Dombey & Son
down & dirty
Flanders & Swan
ins & outs
tried & true
ups & downs
To emphasize syntactical intimacy, it can unite more than two items:
Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice
>My comma was to indicate a minuscule pause in the flow; you
>could omit it, but it wouldn't read as well.
True, which is why it's welcome before the weak <and>, which binds a series of
two or more items (words, phrases, sentences). From Shakespeare's sonnets
(London, 1609):
Shall sum my count, and make my old excuse (2)
Which hides your life, and shewes not halfe your parts (17)
Who pleade for loue, and look for recompence (23)
For thee, and for my selfe (27)
Desiring this mans art, and that mans skope (29)
That heales the wound, and cures not the disgrace (34)
And they are ritch, and ransome all ill deeds (34)
You liue in this, and dwell in louers eies (55)
And they shall liue, and he in them still greene (63)
Shall profit thee, and much inrich thy booke (77)
When others would giue life, and bring a tombe (83)
They that haue powre to hurt, and will doe none (94)
Dulling my lines, and doing me disgrace (103)
Useful also with <but>, <or>, and <nor>:
The paine be mine, but thine shal be the praise (38)
Where I may not remoue, nor be remoued (25)
So then I am not lame, poore, nor dispis'd (37)
For whether beauty, birth, or wealth, or wit (37)
Either not assayld, or victor beeing charg'd (70)
J. W. Love
>If you were correct, serial comma users would write "Let's
>get down, and dirty!"
No, they wouldn't. That's the strong <and>, which binds coordinate items into
an idiomatic unity. Pronunciation reduces it to one phoneme, /n/, spellable as
<'n'>, or even as an ampersand:
back & forth
Dombey & Son
down & dirty
Flanders & Swan
ins & outs
tried & true
ups & downs
To emphasize syntactical intimacy, it can unite more than two items:
Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice
>My comma was to indicate a minuscule pause in the flow; you
>could omit it, but it wouldn't read as well.
True, which is why it's welcome before the weak <and>, which binds a series of
two or more items (words, phrases, sentences), but not so strongly as to make
them an idiomatic unity. From Shakespeare's sonnets (London, 1609):
Shall sum my count, and make my old excuse (2)
Which hides your life, and shewes not halfe your parts (17)
Who pleade for loue, and look for recompence (23)
For thee, and for my selfe (27)
Desiring this mans art, and that mans skope (29)
That heales the wound, and cures not the disgrace (34)
And they are ritch, and ransome all ill deeds (34)
You liue in this, and dwell in louers eies (55)
And they shall liue, and he in them still greene (63)
Shall profit thee, and much inrich thy booke (77)
When others would giue life, and bring a tombe (83)
They that haue powre to hurt, and will doe none (94)
Dulling my lines, and doing me disgrace (103)
The same comma serves well with series of two or more items, of which the final
one follows <but>, <or>, or <nor>:
Tony Cooper
<NotM...@aircom.net> wrote:
>
>It is also called the Harvard comma, giving it yet more accreditation.
>Using it is a matter of style, we'll agree. Anyone is free to leave it
>out, just as they are free to spoon their soup towards them instead of
>away. Just a matter of style and taste.
My God, Man! Were you raised by wolves? Soup is never, never,
spooned towards oneself.
Bob Cunningham
<matti-...@totally-official.com> said:
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote...
[ . . . ]
> > If you're talking about the comma after "cord", it's
> > traditional enough in the UK that it has the name "Oxford
> > comma".
> > _The Oxford Style Manual_ says
> > [snip -- yes, we DO know about that]
> We've been round this mountain enough times for you to be aware that the
> Oxford comma is not traditionally taught in Britain, and that said
> publisher is out on a creaky limb with it.
It would have made Matti's more evenhanded if he hadn't
snipped the part where the _Oxford Style Manual_ says the
serial comma has been the subject of spirited debate.
In view of the reverence that's accorded St Henry the Fowler
in AUE, I should think his approval of the serial comma in
his 1920s book would count for something in the UK.
> The fact that it has to be labelled thus is surely
> sufficient indication that the bugger ISN'T
> traditional,
That statement is obviously hyperbole. I, for one, would
certainly need stronger proof than that that it isn't
traditional. Some numbers are odd and some are even. The
fact that the even numbers may be categorized as even
doesn't prove that they're untraditional.
> and is universally laughed at behind its little back.
Did Henry Fowler laugh? Did Gowers laugh in _The Complete
Plain Words_? Are you sure there are only a few people in
the UK who have the wisdom to recognize the merit of the
serial comma and are not foolish enough to laugh at it? Do
UK writers laugh who are forced to use the serial comma when
they need to be unambiguous?
For a very long list of individual comments on the serial
comma, see http://tinyurl.com/ncdc .
Also at that site the results of a poll are reported in
which the question was
What's your style for the computer connection word
online?
Yes, I use the serial comma. (For example: Jenny
has dogs, cats, and gerbils.) 353 (88%)
No, I don't use the serial comma. (For example:
Don't hire just any Tom, Dick or Harry.) 47 (12%)
But the poll was international.
Bob Cunningham
said:
[ . . . ]
> > A slighly more interesting question, to my mind: Which is correct?
> > The list mentioned "string, cord, etc."
> > or
> > The list mentioned "string, cord, etc.".
> > ?
> > -Aaron J. Dinkin
> > Dr. Whom
> I think definitely the former, again with the period
> serving double duty.
Yes. I think support for that position can be found in
style guides.
> The more interesting question would be the proper
> punctuation of:
> Did the list mention "string, cord, etc.?"
Almost certainly wrong. If the question mark doesn't belong
to the quoted string, then it has no business being inside
the quotes in either US or UK style.
But there's no reason why the list could not possibly
contain an item that's precisely "string, cord, etc.?". If
that were in the writer's mind, the question would be valid
as NMS has written it, and it would be the only way to write
it. If both the quoted string and the overall sentence are
formally questions, then of the two implied question marks,
the writer has to decide which one to use. In the example
in this paragraph, the question mark after the quoted string
can't be omitted, so the decision is automatic.
Possibly valid questions are
Did the list mention the items "string, cord, etc.!",
"string, cord, etc.?", "string, cord, etc.?.!.", or
"string cord etc./,/:"?
Since the writer is asking about the literal contents of
list items, no combination of characters in an item is
invalid.
> or:
> Did the list mention "string, cord, etc."?
That's essentially an example of the question I raised: How
does the rule against multiple punctuation around a closing
quotation mark apply to the case where one of the
punctuation marks is the closing full stop of an
abbreviation.
> or:
> Did the list mention "string, cord etc?"
Again, almost certainly wrong. No matter what happens, the
question mark belongs to the overall string, and not to the
quoted string.
> I would probably go for the second, but I'm not at all sure that it's correct.
I would be most likely to go for
Did the list mention "string, cord, etc"?
, but I'd be open to convincing evidence that it's not the
customary style. The rule against multiple punctuation
around a closing quote is fairly clearly stated and to me
quite persuasive. I would just like to see an expert
opinion of the special case of the rule where the quotation
ends with a full-stopped abbreviation.
Bob Cunningham
said:
> In article <vah3mvkgbtbdul1c3...@4ax.com>,
> Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >But the full stop at the end of "etc." is there not as a syntactic
> >stop but as simple ellision marker.
> But if a sentence ends with "etc.", there is normally only one
> full point, doing double duty, so it's not as simple as that.
Exactly.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> Did Henry Fowler laugh? Did Gowers laugh in _The Complete
> Plain Words_? Are you sure there are only a few people in
> the UK who have the wisdom to recognize the merit of the
> serial comma and are not foolish enough to laugh at it? Do
> UK writers laugh who are forced to use the serial comma when
> they need to be unambiguous?
Traditionally, UK writers add that comma when it's necessary: omit it
when it's not.
You ask about Gowers; here he is in his edition of _Fowler's Modern
English Usage_:
The more usual way of punctuating [an enumeration] is
"French, German, Italian and Spanish": the commas
between "French" and "German" and "German" and
"Italian" take the place of "ands"; there is no comma
after "Italian" because, with "and", it would be otiose.
There are, however, some who favour putting one there,
arguing that, since it may sometimes be needed to avoid
ambiguity, it may as well be used always for the sake of
uniformity. [Examples provided]
You may be aware that US newspaper editors decided against the use of
the Serial Comma, because the saving in ink and space exceeded the
theoretical danger of ambiguity thuswise entertained.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey
>
> You ask about Gowers; here he is in his edition of _Fowler's Modern
> English Usage_:
> The more usual way of punctuating [an enumeration] is
> "French, German, Italian and Spanish": the commas
> between "French" and "German" and "German" and
> "Italian" take the place of "ands"; there is no comma
> after "Italian" because, with "and", it would be otiose.
> There are, however, some who favour putting one there,
> arguing that, since it may sometimes be needed to avoid
> ambiguity, it may as well be used always for the sake of
> uniformity. [Examples provided]
And, just to rub icing into the cake, the publisher of that tome was
none other than the Oxford University Press, which clearly has no
problem in patting its head whilst rubbing its tummy.
Matti
Bob Cunningham
<matti-...@totally-official.com> said:
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> > [...]
> > Did Henry Fowler laugh? Did Gowers laugh in _The Complete
> > Plain Words_? Are you sure there are only a few people in
> > the UK who have the wisdom to recognize the merit of the
> > serial comma and are not foolish enough to laugh at it? Do
> > UK writers laugh who are forced to use the serial comma when
> > they need to be unambiguous?
> Traditionally, UK writers add that comma when it's necessary: omit it
> when it's not.
Therein lies inconsistency.
> You ask about Gowers;
I didn't really *ask* about Gowers. I merely expressed in
the form of a rhetorical question the idea that Gowers
favored the serial comma in _The Complete Plain Words_. But
I didn't know firsthand that he did, because I didn't bother
to look it up. I only read it somewhere on the Web.
> here he is in his edition of _Fowler's Modern
> English Usage_:
I said nothing about his edition of Fowler's _Modern English
Usage_. I referred to Gowers's _The Complete Plain Words_.
In his second edition of Fowler's work he was hampered by
trying to avoid changing Fowler's text unless it seemed
quite necessary.
Okay, now I've looked it up: In _The Complete Plain Words_,
by Sir Ernest Gowers (1986 edition revised by Sidney
Greenbaum & Janet Whitcut), one of those three people, or
some combination of them, says
Commas are always put after each item in the series
up to the last but one, but practice varies about
putting a comma between the last but one and the
_and_ introducing the last. Neither practice is
wrong. Those who favour a comma (a minority, but
gaining ground) argue that, since a comma may
sometimes be necessary to prevent ambiguity, there
had better be one there always. [Suppose we have
the sentence]:
The company included the bishops of
Winchester, Salisbury, Bristol, and Bath and
Wells.
the reader unversed in the English ecclesiastical
hierarchy needs the comma after 'Bristol' in order
to sort out the last two bishops. Without it they
might be, grammatically and geographically, either
(a) Bristol and Bath and (b) Wells, or (a) Bristol
and (b) Bath and Wells. Ambiguity cannot be
justified by saying that those who are interested
will know what is meant and those who are not will
not care.
The phrase "and gaining ground", together with the powerful
example about the bishops, makes me think the book is really
strongly in favor of the serial comma.
[ . . . ]
> You may be aware that US newspaper editors decided against the use of
> the Serial Comma, because the saving in ink and space exceeded the
> theoretical danger of ambiguity thuswise entertained.
I was aware that the _Associated Press Stylebook_ (2000
edition) rules against the serial comma. This is cited
elsewhere as a reason that US newspapers eschew the serial
comma while everyone else in the US uses it. _APS2000_
doesn't say it's to save space, but I've seen that reason
speculated on elsewhere. It seems like a silly reason.
Does it really save a significant amount of space? And is
saving a miniscule amount of space really a good reason to
risk ambiguity?
Your implication that the decision to eschew the serial
comma was made by editors seems irresponsible. What
evidence do you have that the decision was based on the
desire of editors and not on the submission of editors to
demands of typographers?
Michael West
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My remarks about the punctuation style recommended by Oxford
> University Press have been based on print copies of style
> guides. I don't know of any modern Web source for guidance
> in Oxford style, but there could easily be one that I don't
> know about.
This doesn't answer the URL question, but it may interest
some to know that the CD-ROM "Concise Oxford Dictionary"
(Ninth Ed.) includes, among other supplementary content,
a very brief "Style Guide."
This guide has the following advice about punctuating
quoted matter, which seems to me to be self-contradictory.
-------------------------------
10.2 The closing quotation mark should come after any
punctuation mark which is part of the quoted matter,
but before any mark which is not:
They shouted, ‘Watch out!’.
They were described as ‘an unruly bunch’.
Did I hear you say ‘go away!’?
10.5 A quotation within a quotation is put in double
quotation marks:
‘Have you any idea,’ he said, ‘what “integrated circuit”
means?’
--------------------------------
Note that the example given in 10.5 does not follow the
rule given in 10.2, because the first closing quotation
mark comes *after* an inserted comma (that is, a comma
that is not part of the quoted matter).
I note also that the Oxfordians disregard the advice of most
other style guides on the use of "that" and "which" (see
10.2 above). But then, they're in the business of making
rules, not following them.
The CD-ROM "Concise" dictionary is inferior to the
CD-ROM "New Oxford Dictionary of English" in that
it lacks etymologies, but superior in that it includes
sound files of (RP) pronunciation, as well as some
supplementary text on general usage issues. (Is there
an Oxford CD-ROM product with both?)
Here's a comparison.
[1] The NEW OXFORD Dictionary of ENGLISH
oi
exclamation (also oy) informal
used to attract someone's attention, especially in a rough or angry way.
noun [mass noun] a type of harsh, aggressive punk music originally popular
in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
ORIGIN variant of hoy1: first recorded in the 1930s.
...
[2] Concise Oxford Dictionary
oi
int.
calling attention or expressing alarm etc.
[variant of hoy1]
...
Example [2] is complemented by a charming, prim
young female voice saying "oi" in such a fetching way
that I couldn't resisting playing it over and over until
my dog came strolling in from the next room to see
what the hell I was up to.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
(Expat Yank)
J. W. Love
>US newspaper editors decided against the use of the
>Serial Comma, because the saving in ink and space
>exceeded the theoretical danger of ambiguity thuswise
>entertained.
Most U.S. newspapers have traditionally accepted the style of the Associated
Press, which went antiserialist in the early 1990s. Columns & editorials
protested this change. However, the serial comma is coming back, and you can
often find it in the _Wall Street Journal._ Over there in England, you can
occasionally find it sneaking into the hallowed pages of the _Times Literary
Supplement_ (London).
R J Valentine
...
} Your implication that the decision to eschew the serial
} comma was made by editors seems irresponsible. What
} evidence do you have that the decision was based on the
} desire of editors and not on the submission of editors to
} demands of typographers?
I don't know if this helps you or not, but I am happy to help you when you
need help and to correct you when you are wrong:
William F. Buckley, editor of _National Review_, once issued a ukase (his
word (which I mention in case the back issues are now searchable))
requiring his writers to use the serial comma in his magazine. There was
a column or part of a column about it at the time in that magazine. I'm
not sure when it was, but I let my subscription lapse after they published
a spoiler about the end of the second _Star Wars_ movie (Episode V), and
the serial comma thing may have been during the year before that movie
came out.
Now a newcomer might raise a separate issue, as to whether editors must
submit to the demands of typographers, but he was (may still be, for all I
know) also the publisher of that magazine; and publishers may be in a
better position to deal with typographers.
ObLaurelplex: William F. Buckley (the station chief, not the editor and
publisher) is buried at Arlington in the same section that Rear Admiral
Grace Murray Hopper (of bug, nanosecond, and COBOL fame) is buried in.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Michael West
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:bk2qqu$ntu4h$1...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> > [...]
> > Did Henry Fowler laugh? Did Gowers laugh in _The Complete
> > Plain Words_? Are you sure there are only a few people in
> > the UK who have the wisdom to recognize the merit of the
> > serial comma and are not foolish enough to laugh at it? Do
> > UK writers laugh who are forced to use the serial comma when
> > they need to be unambiguous?
>
> Traditionally, UK writers add that comma when it's necessary: omit it
> when it's not.
Or when they *think* it's not, anyway.
>
> You ask about Gowers; here he is in his edition of _Fowler's Modern
> English Usage_:
> The more usual way of punctuating [an enumeration] is
> "French, German, Italian and Spanish": the commas
> between "French" and "German" and "German" and
> "Italian" take the place of "ands"; there is no comma
> after "Italian" because, with "and", it would be otiose.
> There are, however, some who favour putting one there,
> arguing that, since it may sometimes be needed to avoid
> ambiguity, it may as well be used always for the sake of
> uniformity. [Examples provided]
Hardly a resounding endorsement. I take it, then that
he did not follow the second group.
> You may be aware that US newspaper editors decided against the use of
> the Serial Comma, because the saving in ink and space exceeded the
> theoretical danger of ambiguity thuswise entertained.
The problem I see here is that there is a choice between,
on the one hand, doing something "for consistency" when there
is no other reason to do it, and on the other hand, leaving it
up to the discretion of writers who may be ill-qualified to
judge what is and is not ambiguous to their readers.
Not an appealing choice, in my opinion.
Michael West
"Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
They make me think he was strongly in favor of it when it
was necessary to prevent ambiguity. His neutrality on the
"there had better be one there always" position (which he
attributes to others) suggests to me that he wasn't convinced
of it. He gives no special weight to "consistency" in the
balance.
Bob Cunningham
<mbw...@removebigpond.net.au> said:
[about examples from COD9]
> 10.5 A quotation within a quotation is put in double
> quotation marks:
> 'Have you any idea,' he said, 'what "integrated circuit"
> means?'
> --------------------------------
> Note that the example given in 10.5 does not follow the
> rule given in 10.2, because the first closing quotation
> mark comes *after* an inserted comma (that is, a comma
> that is not part of the quoted matter).
I agree. The comma after "idea" is wrong, and the _Oxford
Style Manual_ would say it's wrong. As far as the comma
after the first part is concerned, it exactly parallels the
example I quoted earlier from the _Oxford Style Manual_:
'What is the use of a book', thought Alice,
'without pictures or conversations?'
and the one I quoted from I.C.B. Dear's _Oxford English_:
'That', he said, 'is nonsense.'
The error you've found in _COD9_ is unchanged from _COD8_.
Matti Lamprhey
> X-No-Archive: yes
> [...]
> It was the existence of the sound feature on the COD CD-ROM that
> enabled the BBC to wind-up its pronunciation unit. It consisted of a
> couple of bods who were always on hand to answer questions that
> cropped up during recording of programmes. [...]
It's still going as the BBC Pronunciation Research Unit. I posted here
when I heard its head interviewed on R4's _Feedback_ in June, and here's
an independent article about it from around that date:
http://www.speechtechmag.com/pub/industry/2054-1.html
: June 3, 2003
:
: HTK and BBC Develop New TTS Capability
:
: IPSWICH, UNITED KINGDOM - HTK Limited, UK, has developed a speech
: synthesis (text-to-speech) capability to deliver the BBC preferred
: pronunciation of foreign words and names.
:
: According to HTK, previously it has not been possible for a computer
: generated voice to accurately render sounds spanning multiple
: languages in a single voice within the same utterance.
:
: Initial users of the system will include TV and radio broadcasters who
: need to know how to pronounce foreign names and events correctly, for
: instance to cover news stories, international sporting events and the
: World Service. A Web browser interface will deliver both spoken and
: written pronunciations to the user upon request, with information
: updated on a daily basis and covering BBC broadcast information
: compiled over the past 60 years. HTK has worked closely with the BBC's
: Pronunciation Research Unit for 12 months to prepare for the launch of
: the new 'BBC SpeakEasy' system which occurred in March, 2003.
Matti
Charles Riggs
<ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>In message <3418mvs6hritacu8q...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
><NotM...@aircom.net> writes
>
>>out, just as they are free to spoon their soup towards them instead of
>>away. Just a matter of style and taste.
>
>Ha! Shoot soup towards the scoop chute once in the Travellers' Club, and
>the waiter will have a quiet word. Do it twice, and the secretary will
>have a quiet word. Do it three times and the matter is placed before the
>committee and you're blackballed. Americans and their strange lack of
>co-ordination when it comes to handling a fork and knife simultaneously
>are tolerated as guests of members but the committee would be certain to
>reject applications for membership.
As well they should, James. AUE should be more like this Travellers'
Club you speak of: a place where we can escape the hoi polloi of this
world (Hello, T**y) for a few hours each day, with their mean speech
and common habits.
By the way, not accepting your slur, Americans can be trained to use a
fork and knife properly. The sensitive ones even learn it
automatically once they venture into the wider world.
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> If I hadn't seen Matti's beard in cyberspace, I'd suspect
>> he is a woman after all, but photos can be faked. Can
>> anyone here verify Matti's sex? A boink would suffice.
>
>What if cross-dressing Matti comes in drag?
Then we'll hope, in that eventuality, his bosom buddy C**per won't be
holding his arm.
Ross Howard
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrought:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:01:29 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
><matti-...@totally-official.com> said:
>
>> "Bob Cunningham" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>
>[ . . . ]
>
>> > If you're talking about the comma after "cord", it's
>> > traditional enough in the UK that it has the name "Oxford
>> > comma".
>
>> > _The Oxford Style Manual_ says
>> > [snip -- yes, we DO know about that]
>
>> We've been round this mountain enough times for you to be aware that the
>> Oxford comma is not traditionally taught in Britain, and that said
>> publisher is out on a creaky limb with it.
>
>It would have made Matti's more evenhanded if he hadn't
>snipped the part where the _Oxford Style Manual_ says the
>serial comma has been the subject of spirited debate.
>
>In view of the reverence that's accorded St Henry the Fowler
>in AUE, I should think his approval of the serial comma in
>his 1920s book would count for something in the UK.
They count for exactly as much as his proclamations about "will" and
"shall" -- not a lot.
>> The fact that it has to be labelled thus is surely
>> sufficient indication that the bugger ISN'T
>> traditional,
>
>That statement is obviously hyperbole. I, for one, would
>certainly need stronger proof than that that it isn't
>traditional. Some numbers are odd and some are even. The
>fact that the even numbers may be categorized as even
>doesn't prove that they're untraditional.
>
>> and is universally laughed at behind its little back.
>
>Did Henry Fowler laugh? Did Gowers laugh in _The Complete
>Plain Words_? Are you sure there are only a few people in
>the UK who have the wisdom to recognize the merit of the
>serial comma and are not foolish enough to laugh at it? Do
>UK writers laugh who are forced to use the serial comma when
>they need to be unambiguous?
No, but the situation is exactly as you describe: we're "forced" to
use it sometimes, just as we're sometimes forced -- much to our
chagrin and against our better judgement -- to use the greengrocer's
apostrophe to pluralise the letters of the alphabet (e.g. "dot the i's
and cross the t's"). In general, though, 80 years or so after Fowler's
best efforts, knee-jerk serial-commification for
serial-commification's sake continues to be seen as an irksome quirk
of the pedantic punctuator by most non-scientific British writers and
editors.
***********
Ross Howard