If a quote falls at the end of sentence whose ending punctuation is not the same as the quote’s, how does that work? I keep rewording sentences because I haven’t ever really worked this out.
For example:
That stupid idiot had the nerve to ask me, “Would you like salt with your tea?”!
Have you ever heard someone yell “Fire!”?
The way I’ve written it above doesn’t sit well with me. Maybe it’s right, but I doubt it. So what is the correct way (aside from just not ending on a quote in the first place)? They aren’t great examples, but I have come across this a few times where both punctuation marks seemed important to include.
You’ve got it right – although I think the occasions when both exclamation and question are called for are very few.
And I’m sure you already know to omit the period at the end of a sentence quoted in a question (or exclamation): “Did you hear him say, ‘I too am an American’?”
The second looks fine to me, and quite conventional.
In the first example, the exclamation point is unnecessary in the first place, as the sentence is in the form of a declarative (not an exclamation). The use of the word “stupid” has no bearing on this.
From a good writing point of view, the use of the exclamation point is not only grammatically unnecessary; it is also suggestive of an immature writing style, and thus counter productive in terms of the writer’s image management.
I’d disagree, slightly, roger – as you say, it would be inappropriate in most written contexts, but it’s clear from the phrasing (e.g., “stupid idiot”) that it’s reportage of an oral exclamation, and hence the exclamation point is appropriate.
Like I said, poor examples, and I’m not at all given to using the exclamation point except when really necessary, and then only in casual conversation. It’s just one of those odd little questions that arises from time to time.
(I have a similar struggle with a thought that always pops into my head, but always gets rearranged: “A friend of mine’s dog ran away the other day.”
I have trained myself to either remove the “of mine’s” or, less frequently, switch it to “The dog of a friend of mine”.)
I can’t see how or where an oral exclamation is involved, Poly. The use of the phrase “stupid idiot” is just the writer’s description of her interlocutor. I really see no reason for an exclamation point, and plenty of reasons against it.
To broaden the discussion a bit, I also feel that this kind of example touches on a principle of good writing mentioned by C.S. Lewis (in his Letters to Children). He writes about the overuse of adjectives, but I think the same principle can be used to discourage the overuse of exclamation points. We shouldn’t be asking the reader to do our job for us.
Again, it depends on what style you’re writing/speaking in, and what tone you want to convey. The unambiguous nature of “The dog of a friend of mine ran away the other day” suggests to the reader/hearer that you’ve put a great deal of thought into your utterance, and that may well not be the kind of tone you wish to convey. We run into this kind of problem in PR, where we don’t want to be too legalistic in one part of a press release, say, because then it draws attention to the other parts of the document which are more casual in tone, causing the (expert) reader to wonder “What’s going on here? What motivates this shift into such careful language?”
If you’re not worried that people will jump to the unlikely, and mischievous, conclusion that you have only one friend, you can simply write/say “My friend’s dog ran away the other day”. And that formulation is consistent with the overall tone of the rest of the sentence, established by the informal phrasal verb “ran away” and the non-specific time marker “the other day” (as opposed to, say, “on Wednesday afternoon shortly after 4pm”) .
Much verbal comedy involves subverting the normal order by juxtaposing words from different registers, but that’s not what you’re after here, I think. A nice example, which will be known to many dopers - but which this Brit only saw for the first time the other day - is the opening from The Life of Brian, when superimposed on a sweeping panorama of the desert are, at intervals, the words (from memory):
I think they’re technically correct, but the exclamation point in the first one doesn’t really need to be there.
I just checked my copy of Lynn Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves (an excellent little book), but she spends very little time on the exclamation point or the question mark, except to point out that there are only a few occasion when they are necessary at all.
I read a lot into the tone of the statement (as did you) – and took it to be an example of someone ranting against an inane question. As such, it was properly expressed and punctuated for the circumstances in which it might be spoken (or, under certain circumstances, written). You appeared to take it as a written comment which should be toned down, made more mature, and in no way exclaimed, and therefore should not have the exclamation point. I disagreed, implying that it was a written-medium example of a (probably) spoken exclamation. We’re not being invited to critique prose style in professional journals in this thread, but to discuss how two example sentences should be punctuated – and I applied myself to the sentences as written. That is precisely what certain adolescents of my acquaintance might say, or write if presenting their feelings in a written medium, regarding the inanity of the question reported. I understood it to be that sort of utterance, from the phrasing used, and commented on the punctuation, as requested in the OP, accordingly.
Certainly I’d find different ways to say that if I were writing it for an article in the Atlantic (fat chance of me ever being invited to write for them!). But that wasn’t what we were asked to do – and I dealt with the punctuation of the sentence as given.
The first principle of good narrative writing: “Don’t tell me; show me.” (Exclamation point optional ;)) I completely agree.
However, good management of exclamation points does not require their virtual elimination. There are utterances that require the additional stress of the exclamation point to make the depth of feeling they contain clear. I’d refer you to gobear’s OP in his Pit thread on what gay men ought to be doing for intelligent management of punctuation – he makes his point without overuse of exclamation points, and the thread is passionately expressed throughout, but only the thread title and two sentences end with the dreaded ! – and those two demand it. Perfect, restrained use, IMO. (I’d be very interested in your reaction to it from a stylistic perspective, as well as any comments you might have on content.)
I plead guilty to branching out a bit in GQ, but hope I will escape without an official warning! (You didn’t report me, did you?)
We’re just off to sing carols, so I only read Gobear’s post briefly and will only be able to reply briefly.
The piece is sarcastic (though some would call it ironic), a style that I find loses a lot of impact through overuse. Something similar can be said of those who use a lot of multiple negation. Having attempted to find out what they actually mean, I invariably end up asking myself why they couldn’t just write that in the first place.
Now that’s not meant as attack on GB or his thinking, sexual orientation, lifestyle(!), etc. etc. It’s just the first thing that struck me.
While I agree completely that an exclamation point is very frequently unnecessary, and superfluous, and gives an immature tone to writing, the fact remains that in some cases, it is indeed appropriate. After all, it exists for a reason. Seriously, not looking for a critique of whether I was supposed to use the exclamation point in that crappy example or not.
Thanks for the answers though, I guess even though it looks wrong, I’ve been doing it right anyway.
No, not true at all. Good writing ought to draw from sources besides Strunk and White (who, incidentally, have done more harm to the goal of good writing than just about anyone else) and there are very few clear-cut “rules” that have any real validity. Incidentally, there is no “form” that an exclamation must be in. You seem to imply that there is a particular sentence structure associated with exclamations, but that’s simply not the case.
This is the type of “rule” that gets people into trouble. Adjectives are quite necessary in English; there is an old, inexplicable superstition about their use in English writing but reading a few pages of any good novel will reveal quite a few of these so-called “overused” adjectives. I think this rule, too, may have become famous due to the work of the infamous Messrs. Strunk and White, and I don’t envy the composition teachers that have to work to dispell this ideology (if you will) in order to teach their students to be good writers.
Certainly adjectives can be overused, but that’s not to say they must be ruthlessly eliminated from your writing. Bad authors can get into trouble with any part of speech, and to single the adjective out for abuse is unfortunate, since it’s our most useful descriptive tool.
I have never picked up a copy of Strunk and White, own no style guide, and am far from being prescriptive both by inclination and by training. Adjectives have their place, of course, but when their use becomes predictable in certain discussions or contexts, e.g. rebuttals, then I think it’s opportune to reconsider their use, on the grounds that their effect is so minimal, and thus the opposite of the effect intended by the author. Words such as “egregious” come to mind, limiting myself to this board only.