posted
OK, I know this is ridiculously pathetic, but nevertheless.
"Xyz," he said. "Abcdefg."
This is standard Amrican punctuation (and Penguin's, for some reason or another). A flaw exists: you see, the actual quote [uninterrupted] is -
"Xyz, Abcdefg."
- and not -
"Xyz, abcdefg."
- although that is understandable, since the quote is incorporated into a sentence.
In many non-American books and publications, the common method of punctuation is:
"Xyz", he said, "abcdefg".
Or:
"Xyz", he said. "Abcdefg."
This can be slightly confusing. When do you use one rather than the other? After all, the "he said" bit makes very little difference to the punctuation INSIDE, so when a full stop and when a comma?
When punctuating a single quote, without commentary or other interferences, the quote SHOULD look like the following:
"Xyz, abcdefg."
Or:
"Xyz. Abcdefg."
Why have the full stop inside? I mean, was that actually taken from the brackets' punctuation?
This is a full sentence (with a supplement).
This is a full sentence. (The supplement is a whole one, too.)
Now, why put the punctuation inside? After all, brackts are things which do not HAVE to be read, although everyone reads them. This means that if you wrote the punctuation outside (when using the second option), you would have 'trouble' since you then skip the brackets and suddenly have another full stop that 'has no use'! Apparently (as I figured it out), quotes got the same punctuation.
The Israeli press, for some reasong or another, tends to quote a single, uninterrupted quote as:
"Xyz, abcdefg".
(Please remember: In Hebrew there are no capitals, so it's basically in the other direction, without capitilisation.)
I'm confused, comments?
[ January 02, 2005, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, all punctuation that is not in fact part of the quote should be outside the quote-marks, lest the meaning be changed, so
"Xyz", quoth he. "Abcdefg".
And in a similar vein, if he is surprised at the question being asked, he would say "'Question?'! There is no question!". Note that there are two levels of quotation; I am quoting someone denying that there exists a question, and at the end of my sentence is a full stop outside quotation marks, although his sentence ends with an exclamation. Similarly, he is quoting someone asking a question, and at the end of his quotation is an exclamation, because he is surprised or annoyed at the question mark inside his quotation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Obviously, all punctuation that is not in fact part of the quote should be outside the quote-marks, lest the meaning be changed..."
While this may be philosophically consistent, and it's certainly true among geeks -- who, far more than most people, use quotation marks in this way -- it is not always grammatically correct.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, who is the Official Grammar Communist on this board, anyway? If I say it's right, then it's right. (Nods)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My teachers always taught me to put my punctuation before quotation marks. Though you're right, with a quote it is a bit more difficult. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who is the Official Grammar Communist on this board, anyway?
No idea, can I apply?
"... 'De vita desperabat', they will say, 'quod stultus Caesar erat'."
This is from one of my scripts (and drop Latin syntax's implications, for now). Strictly speaking it should be the following:
"... 'De vita desperabat,', they will say, 'quod stultus Caesar erat.'.".
Look at the full stops! A nightmare! It was therefore decided, I guess, that if a full stop or a comma (or a semicolon, for that instance) is placed outside of brackets or quotes, it includes what's inside them. That's my antithesis for you, King of Men.
quote: While this may be philosophically consistent, and it's certainly true among geeks -- who, far more than most people, use quotation marks in this way -- it is not always grammatically correct.
Again, Tom, you are correct.
The thing is, this one seems correct:
"Xyz" he said, "Abcdefg".
And yet I am still to determine whether or not the "Xyz" bit is a clause within the 'external sentence'. It's another problem I have similarly with dashes:
"This is a clause - with a note - and this part completes it."
The same you could write like this:
"This is a clause, with a note, and this part completes it."
Double-dash? Two commas? Comma, semicolon? Who knows?
Jonathan
EDIT:
quote: My teachers always taught me to put my punctuation before quotation marks.
That's American, I once heard. As in: (Hypothetical quote:)
I think that what has been done in Iraq is truly "Outrageous," it is unacceptable.
Now, without any relation to my political views, the punctuation indicates that the end of the quote is part of the 'second part' of th sentence, thus indicating that the sentence is split in the middle of the quote; something which is unrue. The marking of the irony, the sarcasm or the cynicism in quotes does not split the sentence elsehow. So I truly have no idea why it was done so.
Jonny
[ January 02, 2005, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
