Grammar Police Question
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:16 AM
#42
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true, Budman. It depends on where you live; see this link, for example:
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:22 AM
#44
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, this link claims an exception to the period within the quotations rule even for American English -- I've not seen this before:
http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html
http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:22 AM
#45
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 49,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Budman: Not so. There are differences in the placement of periods and commas between American and British English. And the conventions for punctuation vary considerably from language to language. In French, for example, there is a space both before and after a semicolon.
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:31 AM
#48
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, 111op. I hadn't known that.
I'm glad to see the website say that "<i>In the United Kingdom, Canada, and islands under the influence of British education, punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic.</i>" as that's what I've always felt, that it wasn't logical to put a period or comma <i>inside</i> quotation marks and I don't like doing it, even though I know that's the way it's supposed to be done in the U.S.
I'm glad to see the website say that "<i>In the United Kingdom, Canada, and islands under the influence of British education, punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic.</i>" as that's what I've always felt, that it wasn't logical to put a period or comma <i>inside</i> quotation marks and I don't like doing it, even though I know that's the way it's supposed to be done in the U.S.
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:34 AM
#49
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know -- I never liked this either, capo, and I always have to look it up.
Then, of course, for a question mark, the rule changes again. Here you're supposed to put the question mark inside the quotation mark only if the question mark is part of the quotation (so, in this case, logic wins).
Then, of course, for a question mark, the rule changes again. Here you're supposed to put the question mark inside the quotation mark only if the question mark is part of the quotation (so, in this case, logic wins).
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:42 AM
#51
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually read about half of the book (of course) -- bought it from Heathrow in February. I didn't think that it was very good either. Maybe I just don't get her British humor. But I admire her for drawing attention to a problem.
Jul 8th, 2004, 09:51 AM
#52
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aaah..Egads...drat and harumph! I cannot play. I work for attorneys, they make up "WORDS" so punctuation gets a 50/50 chance. I do it one way, then another (GRIN)
(no period, I am not sure where to put them now)
(no period, I am not sure where to put them now)
Jul 8th, 2004, 10:32 AM
#53
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is true that we British put the punctuation outside of the quotation marks. Of course, having gone to University in the US, I had the MLA Handbook (The Holy Grail of college English departments) shoved down my throat. The MLA espouses the American system of punctuation. This truly shows how SUBJECTIVE the rules of grammar are.
In Shakespeare's day, double negatives were perfectly correct. Bishop Lowth came along and stated that "two negatives make a positive." That statement changed our language forever, as now double negatives are grammatically incorrect.
So many factors have changed the English language, everything from the Norman Invasion, to the Great Vowel Shift, to King Alfred's Preface.
And it will continue to change. So what is correct today maybe incorrect tomorrow.
Please, don't let us start talking about restrictive and unrestrictive clauses. I have had enough of all this for one day.
Cheers.
In Shakespeare's day, double negatives were perfectly correct. Bishop Lowth came along and stated that "two negatives make a positive." That statement changed our language forever, as now double negatives are grammatically incorrect.
So many factors have changed the English language, everything from the Norman Invasion, to the Great Vowel Shift, to King Alfred's Preface.
And it will continue to change. So what is correct today maybe incorrect tomorrow.
Please, don't let us start talking about restrictive and unrestrictive clauses. I have had enough of all this for one day.
Cheers.
Jul 8th, 2004, 10:44 AM
#55
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thingorjus mentions the derivations and growth of the English language. There is an old, old PBS series that Bill Moyer put together about this. I found it on VHS at the library. I was fascinated.
Jul 8th, 2004, 11:02 AM
#56
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>Now, let's not get into whether the period should be in or out of the quotation marks ....<
Budman said, "Periods and commas always go inside the quotation marks -- there are no exceptions to that rule".
Why did Budman say, "Periods and commas always go inside the quotation marks -- there are no exceptions to that rule"?
H. Allen Smith has a nice vignette where he relates his argument with his editor on this point. He and I agree. (See above pars.)
Budman said, "Periods and commas always go inside the quotation marks -- there are no exceptions to that rule".
Why did Budman say, "Periods and commas always go inside the quotation marks -- there are no exceptions to that rule"?
H. Allen Smith has a nice vignette where he relates his argument with his editor on this point. He and I agree. (See above pars.)
Jul 8th, 2004, 11:07 AM
#57
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if I see your point, ira.
Now, I did notice that when you quoted Budman, you left the period outside of the quotation. Being rebellious, eh?
Here it seems like the period should be inside, regardless of whether you follow the American or the British school.
No one has yet said that the Brits call a period a full stop.
Now, I did notice that when you quoted Budman, you left the period outside of the quotation. Being rebellious, eh?
Here it seems like the period should be inside, regardless of whether you follow the American or the British school.No one has yet said that the Brits call a period a full stop.
