I’ll agree, but if you use a comma before the quote, it is still one sentence, not two.
Some punctuation styling may be for aesthetic reasons (cf. kerning): imagine the full stop sliding to the left up to or beyond the closing quotation mark so as to eliminate excessive white space. Even if that is not at all what is going on, one punctuation mark may simply look better than two; at any rate, this is not Lojban.
Interesting thread. I’m in book publishing/desktop publishing, and we follow Chicago manual.
“How to Write Good” is a classic humor piece by Michael O’Donoghue that appeared in, I believe, the first issue of National Lampoon.
One of the funniest satires of writing advice ever. Any respectable thread on style, grammar, or writing has to include at least one person using writing good, instead of well, in his memory.
As already noted, this one, because of aesthetics. The “right” (i.e.- commonly accepted) style isn’t always the strictly most logical one, but logic does prevail where there might otherwise be confusion, as in the example in the OP where the period must always, without exception, go outside the quoted word “PASS” regardless of the required style for actual quotations, because that isn’t a quotation.
The funniest satires of writing ever are Dave Barry’s series of columns called “Ask Mr Language Person”. (He said, putting the period outside the quote.) They appear in many of his books and some can be found online.
There’s an online version of The Chicago Manual of Style.
There is also the (related?) question of whether punctuation should be in the same style (bold, italic, …) as the adjacent word.
I’m going to randomly italicize one of my periods and see if anyone notices.
I feel very strongly that nothing not in the quoted phrase be put inside the quote marks. I don’t feel strongly about two marks, one inside and one outside (assuming the one inside is from the original), but I agree that ?“? looks silly and I wouldn’t use it. I have used ?”. on occasion, though.
Somebody produced a TeX style that put a period directly below the quote marks, but I don’t think it caught on. Fortunately, math papers are relatively unlikely to have direct quotes, so the issue doesn’t arise.
I’ve never heard anyone ask this question. I think all style guides agree that punctuation should never be in other than normal style unless some effect is intended.
As above, though, you don’t have to follow style guides.
“produces an unprovable statement when preceded by its quotation.” produces an unprovable statement when preceded by its quotation.
Well, of course. So what’s “normal style”?
Normal style is the font used for unaltered characters, altered meaning bold, italic, underlined, super and subscript, etc. or other stuff on a Word ribbon or on the toolbar in a reply box on Discourse. I.e. the stuff that just appears when you type without moving your fingers off the character keys.
Knuth, who generally knows what he is talking about, wrote
Knuth may have written Literate Programming, but I won’t believe that until I see a variety of old manuals that say that. And a variety of old books using that convention.
Let’s start with, that seems to be what is going on in the Chicago Manual of Style, 1st edition; look at the semicolons in Section 51:
I see that italicized semicolons are used after italicized foreign text.
Interesting, but not truly ruling.
I found a better example in the 1918 Detroit News style guide.
Separate members of the series with semicolons if there are commas within the phrase, as: There were boxes of guns, bayonets and cartridges; casks of powder, high explosives and chemicals; and many other prohibited articles.
Both the commas and semicolons are italicized.
Yet I also found another 1918 example, The Uses of Italics.
XVII. Italicize the names of plaintiff and defendant in the citation of legal cases; also the titles of proceedings containing such prefixes as in re, ex parte, In the matter of, etc.
The Boston Elevated Railway Co. vs. The City of Cambridge. In re Johnson; ex parte Thomas; In the matter of the petition of John Smith for a change of venue.
Neither commas nor semicolons are italicized next to italicized text.
I looked in a much earlier book, The Author’s and Publishers Assistant, from 1839.
Letters, Spaces,[6] Points, &c. of which it is composed have each to be selected, assembled, and again distributed singly; in doing which the greatest attention and accuracy are necessary.
Again, the semicolon is not italicized next to italicized text.
None of these had direct instructions on what to do or not do. Even finding an example requires extensive use of Ctrl-F, with maybe one in a hundred semicolons following italics. The Detroit News is the best case for so far, but the issue is not in the least settled.
That specific sentence is not over, because you know it continued. I hope you’re not saying that [She asked me.] is not a complete sentence.
IME, when a semicolon or colon that is set Roman (ie, normal) follows text set italic, the kerning may be noticeably off. The upper dot may crowd or even overlap the italicized character next to it. Italicizing the punctuation mark can avoid that. So can custom kerning, but I dare say 95% of people have no idea how to do that. Or even that they should.
Of course, much depends on the software one is using.
Yes, the examples I gave from early examples have the semicolons noticeably different, and some people would deem them noticeably off. That’s obviously an effect of the type used in Discourse and is similar in the Project Gutenberg examples I used, whatever their type set is. Maybe the originals looked better. Or not. Nevertheless, the originals changed out of italics for the semicolon.
Anybody willing to search to find a representative sampling of many early pages to determine what style guides of the past mandated is encouraged by me to do so.
It depends on context. In that context, it is not a rational complete sentence by itself, because the object part is necessary to understand what was asked. The sentence cannot end there and still make sense; it needs more, within that same sentence.