*Since the sign read “Open,” and I had some time to kill, I decided to go inside. *
Ok so that’s a terrible terrible sentence but am I the only one who thinks it looks totally awkward to have the comma inside the quotation marks?
I think so too.
Is everyone saying they shouldn’t then?
(Unless of course the sign actually had a comma on it)
While in the U.S. the comma is usually put inside the quotation marks, it is not necessarily the case. It is not incorrect to put it the other way, because as Mangetout mentioned, the comma is probably not in the sign, it is just acceptable the less correct way and thus easier.
In the other English speaking countries around the world, it is in fact encouraged to use the comma in the correct fashion (inside, if it is indeed being quoted and outside if it is not - the same, I should mention, is done with other puncuation marks like period, colon, etc.).
I just reread my post and it seems a bit vague. It’s been a long day. I hope it is not as vague to others.
TV
No, that’s fine, TV time, but do you have a cite? I’ve always heard it the other way. Believe me, I would welcome the change.
From The Chicago Manual of Style, part 5.86:
But, see 5.87:
I agree whole-heartedly, KidCharlemagne. The rules in this case are silly and illogical.
Since computer programming has forced a large portion of people to be very literal in where they put their quotes and punctuation, I think (hope) we’re now on the verge of changing the rule for the better.
Besides, how would you say:
According to the Harbrace College Handbook, the comma and ther period are always placed inside the quotation marks. The tradition comes from an American printers’convention and applies only to American standards.
There is one exception noted: The period follows the parenthetical reference to the source of the quotation. For example:
The author says, “Beware of Greeks bearing gift horses in the mouth” (p.22).
Meanwhile, the language is constantly changing. Do with it what you will except in English 101.
I would say, “He ended his question with a question mark.”
The comma is inside the quotation mark because it’s smoother and less abrupt that way. Punctuation isn’t supposed to be like the syntax of a programming language; it isn’t there to diagram the sentence, it’s there to help the reader.
This doesn’t seem to be much of an issue, though. After five hundred years of typesetting, you can pick up just about any book and it’ll have the commas within the quotes. Think of it as natural selection.
Not wanting to preach to Americans about American usage, but have to disagree with you there typhoon. As has already been said, British usage is to leave commas etc. outside of quotation marks and we don’t find it to be less smooth or less abrupt than your practice. And “just about any book” ignores the many thousands of books available to me and millions like me.
“…or less abrupt” should have read “…or more abrupt” of course.
What goes inside the quotation marks should be what is being quoted. I, too, think it’s silly as hell to include part of the sentence’s punctuation as well.
She said “Let’s go into town,” and I got up and left with her. =
She said
…no she didn’t.
I totally disagree with Typhoon. The comma inside the quotes makes me think that the quoted material was about to go on saying something, and then suddenly I see an end-quote-mark. I think to myself “what came after the comma-- what came after the comma?”
Just checked my Australian newspaper. Commas in quotes there. Looks like there are other countries besides the US that do the commas inside quotes thing. I like it that way. Sure, it doesn’t make sense, but it looks a lot neater. I guess I just don’t think of language as little computer-programesque blocks of meaning.
This all sounds very odd to me; I’m wondering if we might be talking about when a comma exists or is implied or required within the quoted dialogue, not just in the sentence in which the quote is embedded for example:
‘My dear fellow**,**’ said Sherlock Holmes, as we sat on either side of the fire in his lodgings at Baker Street, ‘life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of men could invent…’
As opposed to:
‘My dear fellow’, said Sherlock Holmes, as we sat on either side of the fire in his lodgings at Baker Street, ‘life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of men could invent…’
or
‘My dear fellow’ said Sherlock Holmes, as we sat on either side of the fire in his lodgings at Baker Street, ‘, life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of men could invent…’
It’s very simple. If the comma confuses the issue, put it outside the quotes – that’s where common usage comes from – common friggin’ sense…
“Could you get me some eggs, milk,” said Sheila.
Does the comma separate Sheila’s items or the sentence clause?
“Could you get me some eggs, milk?”, said Sheila.
Better.
I’m no expert, but what I do is keep the point of the puntucation in mind; if you can make the meaning clearer by changing the punctuation, do it!
Yes; that makes sense to me (that doesn’t mean I’m right, so:
Comma is part of sentence structure in which quote is embedded:
The man said “Hand over your wallet”, so I did.
Comma is part of the quoted speech:
“Hand over your wallet**,**” said the man, “or I will tear you into small pieces, starting with your toes.”
Makes sense to me, but IANAExpert.
May I just mention that as passionate as I am about the grammar at issue here, I’m getting hysterical at all the example quotes in this thread!!!
I agree with Mangetout regarding commas being inside quotes if part of the quoted speech. In the OP I was referring to commas that were punctuating the sentence, not the quote. I don’t think there should be anything inside a quote that isn’t in the original (except [sic], …, etc.)