I’m such a geek that I find reading this (and the various debates herein) more fascinating than anything on TV. Grammar fight!
Serenata67! A kindred spirit! We could have t-shirts made up: " Militant Prescriptivist!" “I Love Grammar Fights” etc.
Nope. There are folks around who are actually grammarians. And sometimes they make really stupid mistakes when posting. (Moi?)
Chief Pedant, don’t blame Strunk and White for the tradition of always placing periods and commas inside quotation marks. That began as a printers’ practice to keep periods and commas from getting lost when the printer was setting type. (The Brits, of course, weren’t clever enough to think of that solution.)
And the rules for the other marks are really very easy. You just follow the meaning of what’s being said:
1, I love the song “What Child Is This?”
2, Did you know that it was written to the tune of “Greensleeves”?
-
The Smothers Brothers said that instead of yelling “Fire!” you should yell “Chocolate!”
-
And the Tony for lead actress goes to Cherry Jones for her performance in “Doubt”!
Agayn, the nomber juan rule that muts be keypt in mynd: eets up too thee cliant.
Shore, their our awl sortz uf theengs that hare, four lick of hay bitter turm, “SAT-like” een natchur. Fore egg sample: nown/verbh agearment. Butt avast magority of kwestions art mutters ouve stile. Hen eef ewe rite fur inuff clay ants, ewe wheel re-cognise hat a gud skeel to half eats tea abilijity two meowve frum sty-el tue sty-el.
Doze yier cloyunt wint hue tieu yooze Breeteesh Eengleesh (e.i.e.i.o., goh too hoastpittle, nut goh too *tea *hoastpittle) hend speelingue, bute alzo spesiflies thut Cheek-a-goah ees duh mayne reeferants? Soa bee eet. (End sum oauve mi larjest cliunts – mayjer eenternashonile ayde adgentcies – due joust thut. Tsum prawject managerts eevin wonted ta hol ting roten ent du pasave voytz. Eye peetee thee pour trancelaytours.)
End theats eats dea moast aquerate manswerve tieau tea OP.
You could avoid the issue in that one altogether by having the name of the movie underlined or, preferably, italicized, as it should be. Songs, poems, articles, etc. (any components of a larger work) are placed in quotations marks; larger works (books, movies, albums, etc.) are underlined or written using italics.
What, exactly, is this point supposed to prove? I was born in the US and lived there up until 2 years ago; is your point still proven?
Back to the meat of the side issue, why do Strunk and White single the period and comma out for special treatment apart from the rest of the punctuation marks? What logic lies behind not applying the ‘reported speech’ criteria to those two?
That, whether you know it or not, you are following International English “rules” rather than the American ones. The snooty style was a joke about how “amateur grammarians” often speak.
I don’t believe it is logical at all. It’s pretty much a typography issue. A quick search found the following:
That’s pretty much my take on it as well; given that there seems to be no logical reason for the arbitrary dual-system approach to punctuation, I hardly think there are any grounds to call the more internally consistent approach (i.e. the ‘reported speech’ criteria applied universally) ‘incorrect’. (Note to would-be pedants like Rhythmdvl - “Strunk and White said we’ve always done it that way” is not a logical reason for anything.)
But what about “Oliver!”? Or “The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?”?
Wow, what the fuck happened to reading comprehension?
It’s simple, really. Try and follow along.
It started with Stratocaster asking/answering a question:
In case the subtlety is lost on you, this was specific to American English. Note that for most every style guide published for American audiences, this is correct.
Nonetheless, you piped in with a wrong correction.
friedo, recognizing that for American usage Stratocaster was correct, quotes you and puts things back into Correctsilvania:
No big deal so far. But apparently unaware that there are simple and easy ways of checking whether or not you were correct in the first place, you drool out some wrong examples and then end with [del]a frail attempt at witticism[/del] an asinine comment targeted at friedo:
Oh, aren’t you the clever one? You got in a bon mots, a dear chap, gay cocktail parties and even an Oscar Wilde. Too bad you were fucking wrong (and incorrect, too).
I piped in at this point with one of those things that occasionally gets used on the board (I forget what it’s called, but I believe it rhymes with sight). Yes, despite the widespread convention in American usage (it’s obviously a chore, but do keep in mind that the original statement you were attempting to correct was about American usage) I thought to provide a reference to one of the standard works. I chose Chicago because the SD started in Chicago.
Granted, I was pretty much mocking your snark at first. But since your location suggests you’re used to the British style of placement, I thought to point that out in the thread so as to avoid you coming off like a totally retarded ass. As in, here’s a likely source of the confusion — if you’re brought up in a system that punctuates outside the quote marks, you’re likely to assume that it’s a universal rule and wouldn’t bother to check. Clearly I failed.
Yes. Yes it is. I’m sorry that you lost the excuse of having been taught a different system (or is there some pocket of American usage that treats this differently? This isn’t something like the serial comma or whether to use an em or en dash — it’s a fairly universal rule). I did try though.
I don’t know and I don’t give a shit.
I realize that my first post was phrased oddly (and I’m sorry if it confused you), but take a moment to realize that in this — and in most other grammar/usage threads I pop in on — one of my stock answers is “usage choice depends on the client.” I guess you never got hooked on phonics either, so in case it’s unreadable to you my last posted began and ended with “again, the number one rule that must be kept in mind: it’s up to the client … And that is the most accurate answer to the OP.”
Is it sinking in yet? As long as my clients pay me, they can have the punctuation placed in any order they’d like. Heck, they don’t even have to pay me — my pro bono clients can have their way too. If they don’t have a preference, I’ll follow the conventions of the audience (thankfully I have British proofers working for me so I can easily move between systems). For an American audience, that also means capitalizing proper nouns. It doesn’t mean avoiding split infinitives. See how your statement was a bit more like the former?
But that’s all irrelevant because I only got involved in this when I supplied a cite for stratocaster and friedo’s correct statements.
Not that that stopped you from blathering on.
Where the fuck did that come from? Oh, I forgot … I started off with the realization that reading comprehension was not your strong suit. I never claimed there was logic to the placement. I never claimed that you had to shove anything anywhere (though maybe I should have). It was Chief Pedant (who either doesn’t know what the word ‘pedant’ means, has grown senile and soft with time, or has one of the most ironic usernames ever) who came in to pick a fight with himself. He brought up Strunk. He, like a good anti-pedant, said we should screw the rule (apparently forgetting that his so-called exceptions to clarity were already accounted for) and do things his way. Bully for him. Bully for you too. Bully for my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
Sorry, I did in fact commit one small error in attributing the Strunk and White citation to you when you in fact quoted the Chicago Manual of Style. Nonetheless, my point still stands - saying “CMS says we’ve always done it this way” is no logical justification for defending the less internally logically consistent system as correct and the more internally logically consistent system as incorrect.
Granted, there may actually be a logical justification for doing so, but you have so far failed to provide it, instead opting for the “copious amount of blather and borderline Pitworthy behavior” approach.
Behold, ladies and gentlemen, the Wounded Would-Be Pedant.
Again, we have a failure at reading comprehension. I never attempted or needed to say why we did it this way. but if u want to have ur own rules, u cn do it.
Getting called on your weak, marginally supported cite puts the obligation of saying why it’s done that way on you. In short: yes, you do need to say why. And pointing to the CMS, which just says “well, we’ve always done it this way” just doesn’t cut it. So far you’ve done nothing but deepen my conviction that you have no grounds to call my approach incorrect because you are unable to justify your approach beyond an appeal to tradition.
All grammar is an “appeal to tradition.” Every rule is, to some extent, arbitrary. Accepted usage is, well, what it is. Trying to find logical support for grammatical rules is just not a very satisfying experience, in that many of the conventions are apparently insane. But their purpose is not–i.e., to add precision to language, to aid in our navigation of the written word, by not permitting us all to form our own rules based on what we think is the preferred approach. We can’t have a linguistic free-for-all. Before you know it, we’d have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria. 
IOW, the correct answer to why something proper grammatically is, in fact, “because that’s the way it is” or “we’ve always done it this way.”
I drug it out once when a professor circled all the colons in my paper, wrote a semicolon above each, marked the paper down from an A to a B because of it, and wrote, “Please review the use of colons and semicolons.” At the next class meeting I showed her the particular use of colons that was in my paper, as recommended by Strunk and White (viz., to join two independent clauses when the second one explains or elaborates on the first one). She snarled and gave me my A back.
And I’m absolutely with Chief Pedant and the Don on the irritating consistency of punctuation within quotation marks.
No disagreement here, I just think the arbitrary approach defended by Rhythmdvl does not add precision to the English language; in fact I feel it does the opposite.
I don’t accept that answer in other fields of inquiry; why should I do so here?
Well, you don’t have to, of course. But the short answer would be, because that’s the very nature of grammar. Grammar is by definition the commonly accepted conventions of written language. Whether the convention is appealing or goofy, it’s the convention. So, essentially you’re asking why you should accept that the commonly accepted usage is commonly accepted. The answer is, well, because it is.
Why is that important? Because all of us grammar scholars can understand the rules and follow them, and then everyone knows what the other person means, and there’s no sloppy distractions that pull you out of the written work. I always notice when someone places the period outside the quotation marks. I just do, and it’s the slightest of disruptions to the flow of what I’m reading. But it is a disruption, however slight.
That’s different than saying you have to like it, but commonly accepted conventions are what they are, and that’s grammar in a nutshell. It’s not a study in logic or efficiency; it’s the inventory of consensus on matters grammatical. And as we all know, consensus doesn’t mean absolutely everyone agrees, nor does consensus always produce the most elegant conclusions.
This does not surprise me. The semicolon is a magnificent and exotic instrument in whose mysteries too few people have been initiated. Knowing how to use a semicolon even elevates genocidal dictators somewhat.
For what it’s worth, I loathe the S & W explanation. The beauty of the semicolon is that it can join two clauses together that ordinarily would require some sort of clumsy adverb or conjunction.
I have had to teach writing before. The example I love to use is from the old Mounds/Almond Joy commercials. In my never humble opinion, this represents the paradigmatic use of this sublime piece of punctuation.
Sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don’t.
I haven’t taught this in years, but I suspect the kids today wouldn’t even get the reference.
I just wanted to add somewhat pedantically that while this is true in English, it is definitely not true in all languages. We do not have either an official linguistic authority or, better yet, a systematic treatment of grammar and syntax derived from first principles. Other languages do in fact have the benefit of these things.
While it is a mistake to pretend that English does, it is equally a mistake to presume that grammar is no more meaningful for them than it is for us.
No. No, I am not. I’m asking why the commonly accepted approach should be based on tradition stemming from the practical considerations of an all-but-obsolete technology rather than logical consistency aimed at clarity in communication. I know why the commonly accepted usage is commonly accepted - “because it is” - and I find that answer completely inadequate. Especially as grounds to call other approaches incorrect.