period ouside of quotation marks?
Marc
but not the authority.
When a sentence ends with a quotation the period goes inside the quotation
marks. But I understand that when the sentence ends with quotation marks
that are not used to set off a quotation but are used to set off a special
phrase the period goes outside the quotation marks.
EXAMPLE: This agreement is between The Acme Merchandising Company, Inc.
hereafter referred to as "Vendor" and John Doe hereafter referred to as
"Customer".
I need an authority for this. I am in a dispute with a stuborne person who
insists that when ever a sentence ends with quotation marks that the period
goes inside.
Also would the same principle apply to a sentence that ended with an Email
address set off with < > . This same person insists that the period shoud
goe inside the carots.
Example: Please respond to <Joh...@server.net>.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other
countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
Marc
Rtnda
>insists that when ever a sentence ends with quotation marks that the period
>goes inside.
I believe the period got moved inside the quotation marks regardless of whether
it made sense back when lead type was hand set.
The period was a tiny, thin piece of type and if it had only a space after it
had an unfortunate habit of getting broken off between the type stick and the
press. Most often by the rag used to clean the type in the galley or even once
the page had been locked into the chase after proofing. So the proof showed it
there but when the press ran it had disappeared. If you were very unlucky it
got wedged somewhere else on the page and made a real mess. Involving stopping
the print run, loosening the quoins, fixing it with tweezers and hoping you
could get it all back together so the whole thing didn't end up a mess.
So we were taught (at Paseo High School by Charles Barrett, 1943-1947) that the
period went inside the quote.
Why didn't periods break off when the character ahead of them was something
other than a close quotes mark? They did. But the ones inside were that many
you didn't have to worry about.
If............memory serves. Which it does with decreasing frequency these
days.
(It's stubborn, by the way. And whenever is one word. And the sentence needs
only one that. I'd lose the second one. Sorry. ---The old proof-reader.)
ELGelhaar
Robert Lieblich
>
> I raised this question about 7 years ago in this NG. I remember the answer
> but not the authority.
>
> When a sentence ends with a quotation the period goes inside the quotation
> marks. But I understand that when the sentence ends with quotation marks
> that are not used to set off a quotation but are used to set off a special
> phrase the period goes outside the quotation marks.
> EXAMPLE: This agreement is between The Acme Merchandising Company, Inc.
> hereafter referred to as "Vendor" and John Doe hereafter referred to as
> "Customer".
>
> I need an authority for this. I am in a dispute with a stuborne
Oy!
> person who
> insists that when ever a sentence ends with quotation marks that the period
> goes inside.
You have a problem. If your posting is accurate in indicating that
you are at Cal Berkeley (my alma mater, BTW; class of 1961), you're
asking about American usage -- and you are the one who is wrong.
Except in certain technical writing where clarity is absolutely
essential, standard American practice is always to put the period
inside the closing quotation mark. Same for commas. What you
describe is British practice. (Some Americans follow British
practice. That doesn't make it American practice. It just makes
those Americans eccentric. [Hi, Bob])
Needless to say, it's not at all easy to cite you an American style
manual that tells you to do what Americans do not in fact do.
Here's something that tells you you're wrong; it's from the FAQ at
the website for the Chicago Manual of Style:
<quote>
Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation
marks, but do the British do it that way too?
A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see paragraph
6.10), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original
material should be included within the quotation marks; all others
follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best with
single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation
marks only for quotations within quotations.)
</quote>
The question makes clear what the manual says American practice is
(the FAQ answers questions that are based on what the manual says),
and the answer makes clear that British practice differs.
> Also would the same principle apply to a sentence that ended with an Email
> address set off with < > . This same person insists that the period shoud
> goe inside the carots.
I assume "shoud" and "goe" are typos. As for "carots," the proper
spelling is "carets."
> Example: Please respond to <Joh...@server.net>.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to be an example of, but it is
the correct form. The closing period does NOT go inside the
carets. This is not the same as for quotation marks. Putting the
closing period inside would add the period to the URL and make it
not work properly.
--
Bob Lieblich
Full stop
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Or maybe the British practice just makes more sense.
Peter Moylan
>I need an authority for this. I am in a dispute with a stuborne person who
>insists that when ever a sentence ends with quotation marks that the period
>goes inside.
This proves only that the other person is American and you are not.
The convention varies from country to country. (Although the "logical"
convention, the one that says that you should put quotation marks
around only what is being quoted, seems to be gaining favour in the USA.)
>Also would the same principle apply to a sentence that ended with an Email
>address set off with < > . This same person insists that the period shoud
>goe inside the carots.
>Example: Please respond to <Joh...@server.net>.
This case is more clear-cut. It tends to suggest that the stubborn
person is more than a little stupid. The whole point of the carets is to
make it clear that the following punctuation is not part of the address.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> Marc <marc...@obongo.com> wrote:
>
> >I need an authority for this. I am in a dispute with a stuborne person who
> >insists that when ever a sentence ends with quotation marks that the period
> >goes inside.
>
> This proves only that the other person is American and you are not.
> The convention varies from country to country. (Although the "logical"
> convention, the one that says that you should put quotation marks
> around only what is being quoted, seems to be gaining favour in the USA.)
>
Doesn't it seem silly to put quotes around a single word that happens to
end the sentence and include the period to end the entire sentence
inside those "quotes?" I can't believe the rule applies to question
"marks".
Edward
> Marc <marc...@obongo.com> wrote:
>
> >I need an authority for this. I am in a dispute with a stuborne person who
> >insists that when ever a sentence ends with quotation marks that the period
> >goes inside.
>
> This proves only that the other person is American and you are not.
> The convention varies from country to country. (Although the "logical"
> convention, the one that says that you should put quotation marks
> around only what is being quoted, seems to be gaining favour in the USA.)
>
> >Also would the same principle apply to a sentence that ended with an Email
> >address set off with < > . This same person insists that the period shoud
> >goe inside the carots.
> >Example: Please respond to <Joh...@server.net>.
>
> This case is more clear-cut. It tends to suggest that the stubborn
> person is more than a little stupid. The whole point of the carets is to
> make it clear that the following punctuation is not part of the address.
Are they called carets? I thought the caret was ^. < is "less than"
and > is "greater than". And there's my/the British way of
positioning full stops.
Edward
--
The reading group's reading group:
http://www.bookgroup.org.uk
dcw
Edward <teddy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) wrote in message news:<slrnbq0vun...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au>...
>> This case is more clear-cut. It tends to suggest that the stubborn
>> person is more than a little stupid. The whole point of the carets is to
>> make it clear that the following punctuation is not part of the address.
>
>Are they called carets? I thought the caret was ^. < is "less than"
>and > is "greater than". And there's my/the British way of
>positioning full stops.
Agreed. In this context they're usually called "angle brackets".
David
Donna Richoux
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> Doesn't it seem silly to put quotes around a single word that happens to
> end the sentence and include the period to end the entire sentence
> inside those "quotes?" I can't believe the rule applies to question
> "marks".
Good thing, because it doesn't. The American rule applies to commas and
periods, not to question marks.
I assume you surrounded "marks" with quotation marks out of sheer
mischief.
--
Donna Richoux
Arcadian Rises
>
>Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
><std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Doesn't it seem silly to put quotes around a single word that happens to
>> end the sentence and include the period to end the entire sentence
>> inside those "quotes?" I can't believe the rule applies to question
>> "marks".
>
>Good thing, because it doesn't. The American rule applies to commas and
>periods, not to question marks.
>
Does the rule extend to paranthesis? It should, because it seems awkward to end
a sentence with something between paranthesis, when it would make more sense to
start a new sentence with the information given between paranthesis. After all,
the purpose of paranthesis is to interrupt the flow of the sentence.
R H Draney
>
>Does the rule extend to paranthesis? It should, because it seems awkward to end
>a sentence with something between paranthesis, when it would make more sense to
>start a new sentence with the information given between paranthesis. After all,
>the purpose of paranthesis is to interrupt the flow of the sentence.
Google count alert:
parenthesis 921,000
paranthesis 8,050
parentheses 2,570,000
parantheses 11,500
The ratios are well below Donna's threshold [1] for typo-vs-alternative, but
that's still a lot more of A.R.'s version than I expected to see...nearly all
the first page of hits for the "para-" spellings appear to refer to programming
languages, so perhaps this is some peculiar techie blind spot....r
[1]
threshhold 7,950,000
threshold 55,100
This is one case where logic seems to have won out over aesthetics....
K. Edgcombe
I find that extraordinary. I have never seen the first spelling, and I see a
fair number of web sites both literate and illiterate. Are you sure Google
hasn't taken one its funny turns?
Katy
mUs1Ka
"K. Edgcombe" <ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bns0b5$bjs$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
threshold 5,240,000
threshhold 37,200
m.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
I've decided that the full stop goes inside the parenthesis ,which then
makes it confusing, and generally causes me to remove the parentheses.
Arcadian Rises
>
>Arcadian Rises filted:
>>
>>Does the rule extend to paranthesis? It should, because it seems awkward to
>end
>>a sentence with something between paranthesis, when it would make more sense
>to
>>start a new sentence with the information given between paranthesis. After
>all,
>>the purpose of paranthesis is to interrupt the flow of the sentence.
>
>Google count alert:
>
>parenthesis 921,000
>paranthesis 8,050
>parentheses 2,570,000
>parantheses 11,500
>
>The ratios are well below Donna's threshold [1] for typo-vs-alternative, but
>that's still a lot more of A.R.'s version than I expected to see...
Me too. Actually I used those "alternative" versions inadvertedly.
For singular I use "parenthesis" and for plural "parentheses", which was not
the case in my quoted message. Anyway, those were not the worst mistake I made
in that message. What troubles me most is that my "interjection" has nothing to
do with the rule Donna mentioned.
My point was that IMO a sentence should not end witha phrase, or even another
sentence between parentheses. I hope I got it right this time.
Arcadian Rises
>Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> Does the rule extend to paranthesis? It should, because it seems awkward to
>end
>> a sentence with something between paranthesis, when it would make more
>sense to
>> start a new sentence with the information given between paranthesis. After
>all,
>> the purpose of paranthesis is to interrupt the flow of the sentence.
>>
>I've decided that the full stop goes inside the parenthesis ,which then
>makes it confusing, and generally causes me to remove the parentheses.
>
Good idea.
R H Draney
Sorry...copied them down the wrong way round...the double-H *does* occur more
often in "withholding", which may have blinded me....
I found 542 for "filted"...some occurrences (from among those that are not
clearly misspellings) appear to originate from an odd erroneous backformation
from "filter", but the references to "filted yarns" have me wondering if there's
some obscure technical meaning....r
Peter Moylan
Sorry, that was a thinko on my part, caused by the OP calling them
"carrots". I too would go with "angle brackets".
Sometimes I'll call them "chevrons", but properly speaking that
term should be reserved for the doubled-up version.
Quentin Burward
Peter Moylan at <pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au> says in
<slrnbq3na...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au>:
> dcw <D.C....@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <25080b60.03103...@posting.google.com>,
>> Edward <teddy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> pe...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) wrote in message
>>> news:<slrnbq0vun...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au>...
>>
>>>> This case is more clear-cut. It tends to suggest that the stubborn
>>>> person is more than a little stupid. The whole point of the carets is to
>>>> make it clear that the following punctuation is not part of the address.
>>>
>>> Are they called carets? I thought the caret was ^. < is "less than" and >
>>> is "greater than". And there's my/the British way of positioning full
>>> stops.
>>
>> Agreed. In this context they're usually called "angle brackets".
>
> Sorry, that was a thinko on my part, caused by the OP calling them "carrots".
> I too would go with "angle brackets".
>
> Sometimes I'll call them "chevrons", but properly speaking that term should be
> reserved for the doubled-up version.
Ah---those things that remind us of a Citroën that has rolled onto its side.
--
Quentin Burward.
dcw
R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Sorry...copied them down the wrong way round...the double-H *does* occur more
>often in "withholding", which may have blinded me....
That's because there really *is* a double-H in "withholding".
David
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> I found 542 for "filted"...some occurrences (from among those that
> are not clearly misspellings) appear to originate from an odd
> erroneous backformation from "filter", but the references to
> "filted yarns" have me wondering if there's some obscure technical
> meaning....r
Possibly: "filoselle" is a term for fine thread -- does the knitting
community perhaps use "filted" rather than "filoselled"?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Donna Richoux
The rules about parentheses and ending punctuation are not quite the
same as either system for quotation marks and ending punctuation. I
don't have time at the moment to write out the rules I know, but I'm
sure you'll find them in the "writing guides" at Intro B. For example:
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/parentheses.htm
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Woody Wordpecker
Richoux) said:
> Arcadian Rises <arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >From: tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> > >Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
> > ><std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
> > >> Doesn't it seem silly to put quotes around a single word that happens to
> > >> end the sentence and include the period to end the entire sentence
> > >> inside those "quotes?" I can't believe the rule applies to question
> > >> "marks".
> > >Good thing, because it doesn't. The American rule applies to commas and
> > >periods, not to question marks.
> > >
> > Does the rule extend to paranthesis? It should, because it seems awkward
> > to end a sentence with something between paranthesis, when it would make
> > more sense to start a new sentence with the information given between
> > paranthesis. After all, the purpose of paranthesis is to interrupt the
> > flow of the sentence.
> The rules about parentheses and ending punctuation are not quite the
> same as either system for quotation marks and ending punctuation.
Actually, the rules are about the same, or at least
analogous:
In either the US or the UK style, enclose within parentheses
only what you want to parenthesize.
The gender of the noun is the same (male).
(The gender of the noun is the same.)
A special consideration is a complete sentence parenthesized
within another complete sentence. The parenthesized
sentence doesn't begin with a capital letter -- unless it
begins with a word that's normally capitalized, like "I" --
and it doesn't have an ending period. However, it may have
an ending question mark or exclamation mark.
The gender (gender is not the same as sex) is unknown.
The gender (is gender the same as sex?) is unknown.
The gender (I mean gender, not sex!) is unknown.
> I don't have time at the moment to write out the rules I
> know, but I'm sure you'll find them in the "writing guides"
> at Intro B. For example:
> http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/parentheses.htm
That source seems to cover the points I've made, except that
it could be more explicit about a closing parenthesis at the
end of a sentence. That is, write
The gender is the same (male).
Not
* The gender is the same (male.)
There might be a temptation to make that error because of
confusion with the US rule for putting periods within quotes
at the end of a sentence whether it makes sense or not.
Good style (UK):
Mark the package "fragile".
Absurd style (US norm):
Mark the package "fragile."
Woody Wordpecker
wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > Does the rule extend to [*]paranthesis[*]? It should,
> > because it seems awkward to end a sentence with
> > something between [*]paranthesis[*], when it would make
> > more sense to start a new sentence with the information
> > given between [*]paranthesis[*]. After all, the purpose
> > of [*]paranthesis[*] is to interrupt the flow of the
> > sentence.
If I remember correctly, Mark Israel's AUE FAQ advises
against commenting on other posters' spelling errors, except
when the misspelled item is a grammar or linguistics term.
That exception covers the misspelling *"paranthesis".
The singular is "parenthesis". The plural is "parentheses".
In each of Mr or Ms Rise's uses in the quoted paragraph, it
seems clear he or she should have written "parentheses".
dcw
Woody Wordpecker <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In each of Mr or Ms Rise's uses in the quoted paragraph, ...
Oy!
David
Frances Kemmish
> On 30 Oct 2003, R H Draney wrote
>
> -snip-
>
>
>
>>I found 542 for "filted"...some occurrences (from among those that
>>are not clearly misspellings) appear to originate from an odd
>>erroneous backformation from "filter", but the references to
>>"filted yarns" have me wondering if there's some obscure technical
>>meaning....r
>
>
> Possibly: "filoselle" is a term for fine thread -- does the knitting
> community perhaps use "filted" rather than "filoselled"?
>
Not any member of the knitting community that I know. I haven't heard
either "filoselle" or "filted".
Google suggests "filoselle" is used in embroidery.
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/fi/filoselle164795.html
Googling on "filted" gives a few results which refer to textiles, but
they seem to be errors for "felted".
Fran
R H Draney
>
>Googling on "filted" gives a few results which refer to textiles, but
>they seem to be errors for "felted".
Oh dear...so if the word "filted" appears in an ambiguous context [1], it could
be a typo for "filtered", for "felted", for "filled", or for "fitted"...any
other candidates while we're at it?...
I noticed once, before everybody was getting on those BBS things that were later
replaced by newsgroups, that if I handed a longhand draft to our typists
containing the word "modem", it'd be changed to "modern"...if I typed my draft
[2] instead, the same word would become "model"...they also sent back "parsed"
three times asking if I meant to say "passed"....r
[1] I confess I'm having trouble thinking of one
[2] every document had to be typed by the official typists; didn't matter if the
person composing it was a touch-typist who didn't happen to have that job title
Woody Wordpecker
mUs1Ka
"Woody Wordpecker" <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dkl5qv45ocbobv893...@4ax.com...
m.
Woody Wordpecker
> > > Oy!
> > > David
To each his or her own.
Robert Bannister
> I found 542 for "filted"...some occurrences (from among those that are not
> clearly misspellings) appear to originate from an odd erroneous backformation
> from "filter", but the references to "filted yarns" have me wondering if there's
> some obscure technical meaning....r
Sounds sort of fishy to me.
--
Rob Bannister
Aaron Davies
> In article <1gr9qee.p4yn5v1cipc0mN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid>,
> Aaron Davies <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I have an interesting datum from an Israeli friend--apparently, when
> >using Arabic numerals in handwritten Hebrew, they still write them
> >left-to-right (i.e., writing the largest place first, then the next,
> >etc., in addition to sorting them that way). I found this interesting,
> >as it would be much more logical for them to write them the other way
> >around.
>
> Numerals in Arabic (not the same as "Arabic" numerals) are also
> written with the most significant digit on the left, against the
> flow of the text. This is probably because they were invented in
> India by people who wrote from left to right, and they have
> retained their direction through Arabic (r to l), European
> languages (l to r) and Hebrew (r to l).
Yes, but do they physically write them from left to right? This would
seem to cause a problem, as they would have to guess beforehand how much
space to alot--that's what surprised me with Hebrew.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
dcw
Aaron Davies <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid> wrote:
>dcw <D.C....@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Numerals in Arabic (not the same as "Arabic" numerals) are also
>> written with the most significant digit on the left, against the
>> flow of the text. This is probably because they were invented in
>> India by people who wrote from left to right, and they have
>> retained their direction through Arabic (r to l), European
>> languages (l to r) and Hebrew (r to l).
>
>Yes, but do they physically write them from left to right? This would
>seem to cause a problem, as they would have to guess beforehand how much
>space to alot--that's what surprised me with Hebrew.
So I've been told (though that was Farsi, not Arabic).
David
Mike Lyle
> In article
> <1gr9qee.p4yn5v1cipc0mN%aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid>,
> Aaron Davies <aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I have an interesting datum from an Israeli friend--apparently,
when
>> using Arabic numerals in handwritten Hebrew, they still write them
>> left-to-right (i.e., writing the largest place first, then the
next,
>> etc., in addition to sorting them that way). I found this
>> interesting, as it would be much more logical for them to write
them
>> the other way around.
>
> written with the most significant digit on the left, against the
> flow of the text. This is probably because they were invented in
> India by people who wrote from left to right, and they have
> retained their direction through Arabic (r to l), European
> languages (l to r) and Hebrew (r to l).
Right. But it's also occurred to me that Arabic numerals _are_, in a
logical sense, read from right to left. That's how we manipulate
them: units first, then tens, etc.
Mike.
Mark Brader
> Right. But it's also occurred to me that Arabic numerals _are_, in a
> logical sense, read from right to left. That's how we manipulate
> them: units first, then tens, etc.
Depends on what manipulation you're doing.
--
Mark Brader | "Oh, especially if it's accurate. There's nothing worse
Toronto | than *accurate*, ill-informed, irresponsible press
m...@vex.net | speculation." -- Lynn & Jay: "Yes, Prime Minister"
Yusuf B Gursey
well, *numerals* are written in the same order in arabic and persian
>
> David