I presume you meant bons mots there?
::nya nya nya:: 
There’s nothing that says it must. As soon as the consensus shifts, if it does, then it will be based on some new (at least somewhat) arbitrary rule.
There’s is where we’re talking past each other. I’m not questioning your logic, or saying your method isn’t better. But it is, by definition, currently wrong. As grammar is understood, “because it is” is the ONLY adequate grounds for calling another approach incorrect.
Again, no disagreement here. That’s why I’m pointing out what I perceive as an inconsistency in the use of punctuation. There is nothing that says it must be the way it is now, but IMHO there’s a stronger argument for why it ought to change.
By one standard. As has been shown above (explicitly, I believe, in a quote supplied by Big T) the treatment of periods and commas in relation to quotation marks is not universally the same in the English language. Therefore it is wrong to call either of the two methods (or any others currently in use) incorrect, only more or less logically justifiable.
No, and again no. “Because it is” - or other similar variants - is a cop-out that really only indicates the speaker hasn’t put much thought into the side of the argument being defended and doesn’t care to do so. The Chicago Manual of Style is a very useful book and I’ve referred to it myself on a number of occasions, but as far as the section referring to periods and quotation marks, relying on “because it is” - no matter how impeccably dressed - is an abject grammar fail.
Ah, comme tu es intelligent! Voici un petit gâteau, sauve-toi et joue. 
You know what else doesn’t make sense? Idiosyncratic systems of measurement used in the U.S. (e.g., feet and inches, ounces and pounds), versus metric systems. Good luck changing that, either.
Olentzero: It doesn’t matter whether you accept it or not, just like it doesn’t matter on any other concept.
I was actually going to come in and explain more thoroughly why we use the system we do, but I’m not sure there’s a point. You’re still going to argue that it isn’t logical, and make the ILLOGICAL leap that, since it isn’t logical, it isn’t true.
But I guess I’ll give it a shot. Periods and commas are low impact punctuation marks. They don’t really change much of what is said. If I leave out a period, you are almost certainly still going to understand me. If I leave out a comma, there are specific instances where it will be confusing, but it’s still pretty rare. Question marks, exclamation points often change the tone of what is being said. Colons and dashes often change the meaning itself. (Semicolons are apparently just along for the ride–rarely are they used at the end of quotations.)
So what does this have to do with the quotation rules? It’s simple: since commas and periods are so low-impact, people really don’t care whether they belong to the quote or not. It is almost never an issue that can be misunderstood. So, instead, the use has evolved to use the typography explanation I gave above, and, well, just aesthetics. The period preceded by a quotation mark looks like it’s out there, standing by itself. This is generally considered a bad thing
Furthermore, in most quotations, the period would have to be repeated, anyways, and this is also against the rules for aesthetic reasons (even in International English). If we followed your system, we’d have to say, “John went to the bathroom.”. Both the quote and the statement themselves are declarative sentences–each would need their own period.
(Yes, I’m aware I didn’t punctuate my example properly. I found italics to be better than using multiple quotation mark, as that would seem confusing.)
No, I make no claims about the truth or validity of either system, rather their justifiability based on their logical foundations. I favor one approach over the other, but I don’t call the system I don’t favor untrue or incorrect because of it.
There, sir, is where you are in fact wrong. See my (much) earlier reply to friedo using his own example of the word “nope” for what I actually mean.
But then your new (crap) system is no more logical or systematic than the current one; in which case, if it’s not superior, why should anyone adhere to it?
Ahem. To quote from the Chicago Manual of Style:
So it’s neither my system nor a new one. Is it crap, however? Let’s see what CMS has to say further:
As you can see from the section so heavily emphasized you couldn’t possibly miss it, the period and the comma are treated differently as regards quotation marks: always inside, regardless of whether the matter is quoted or not.
What, as I have asked several times already, is the justification for this? What do the authorities on American usage, CMS and Strunk & White, say to defend this Plessy v Ferguson of punctuation?
“We’ve always done it this way.”
“American typographers have always done it this way, even though it doesn’t always make sense.”
This is, and has been, my point. There is no logical justification for always putting the period and the comma inside quotation marks except for tradition stemming from a technology that is now no longer in mainstream use, and from a practical consideration that had nothing whatsoever to do with grammar, punctuation, or clarity of communication. Treating periods and commas exactly the same way as the other punctuation marks listed above - inside quotes when quoting the words of others, outside quotes when not - is simpler, more logically consistent, and IMHO easier for most to remember. It does away with the absence of logic (by CMS’ own admission) in Section 6.8.
I do hope this post wasn’t too much of a drain on your attention span, as your comment clearly indicated you were physically unable to read the rest of the thread.
Ah, mea culpa–I conflated you with Chief Pedant, who proposed a system of including inside the quotation marks only what was exactly said, with further punctuation outside. My apologies for assuming you were also the one who was trying to be original and creative instead of just plain wrong with regard to American usage.
You forgot something:
“CP’s is a superb proposal, because it simultaneously improves clarity and simplifies a rule created by idiots and perpetuated by pedants.”
So does this mean that if you rule is ever established, you’re not allowed to perpetuate it?
When even the proponents of the American system admit it’s not all that logical, and they allow that the rest of the freaking English-speaking world does it the other way, how wrong can the other approach be?
My problem was that I though you were (a) proposing a new system, (b) claiming that the old system sucks because it’s illogical/inconsistent, and then (c) failing to notice that your own new system was inconsistent if it didn’t do the *“statement.”. *ending. Once I figured out that the conflict was nonexistent because you weren’t the one who’d proposed the new system, we went straight on back to the simple, “**Olentzero **doesn’t know American punctuation standards.”
The key to any writing system or dialect is for it to be internally consistent. And the current American standard, while different from the British English system, is internally consistent. You may wish that Americans would use a different system, but you are still *wrong *regarding *what is commonly accepted as correct usage *in the U.S. Wrong, wrong, dead-fucking-oh-so-wrong, and everyone here knows it.
Except, of course, Olentzero. It’s been fun watching him craft oh-so-pretentious insults yet fall on his face for lack of reading skills.
How so? Two punctuation marks are treated differently than the others in a given situation, based on considerations that have nothing to do with the system itself, and its proponents admit the logic behind it is nonexistent. How is that internally consistent?
This from a fellow who quotes sources that themselves admit the system’s a bit of a clusterfuck, and thinks that’s a sufficient defense thereof?
Yes. This from the fellow that knows how to read. Again, this isn’t an esoteric rule of grammar. This is basic, fourth grade material.
You keep trying to hide the fact that your first correction was wrong and your followup snark to freido was wrong. You fucked up, but rather than simply admit it (or just STFU about it), you change this into a whiny grade-school rant about how stoopid basic grammar and syntax is (hence the Pit thread).
While you’re at it, why don’t you capitalize all nouns? Doesn’t that make sense? Isn’t that how the German’s do it? Have fun. Oh, and why don’t you spell words completely phonetically? Or why don’t you spell everything with the British spelling?
Someone made a statement about American usage, and several times you were wrong. Then you shifted to this nonsense about usage rules needing a logical foundation.
Do try to get some sleep, dear boy. Santa won’t come with your presents if you’re still awake and frothing at the mouth so.
Merry Christmas.
See, there you go again with your snarks. Funny how piss poor your reading comprehension is – you don’t even get the gist of XKCD. No one would have given a shit if you just shut the hell up about it in the first place, but you needlessly flung your shit around in a childish reaction to being corrected.
Pathetic.