I didn’t want to hijack this thread anymore, but I’m confused about a punctuation rule.
The following conversation took place in that thread:
So if I use twickster’s last example, changing it to a statement, I would put it this way: I also watch “Wheel of Fortune”.
But twickster is saying that it would have to be this way: I also watch “Wheel of Fortune.”
I thought if I were quoting the entire sentence, it would be: “I also watch ‘Wheel of Fortune’.” But if I were to remove the quotation marks around the whole sentence, the period would stay outside of the phrase “Wheel of Fortune”.
That’s not correct? I used to think I was a grammar and punctuation nerd.
I thought if I were quoting the entire sentence, it would be: “I also watch ‘Wheel of Fortune’.” But if I were to remove the quotation marks around the whole sentence, the period would stay outside of the phrase “Wheel of Fortune”.
The period goes inside the quotation in your second example: “Wheel of Fortune.” In American English, that is; in British English, the period would go outside the quotation mark.
Formally, this is true. However, there are some good reasons to adjust this classical rule, as the discussion in the Hacker’s Jargon File points out. Specifically, when quoting something like computer code, placing the period inside the quote would seriously adjust the meaning of the quoted code.
I, personally, generalize this notion. If I’m quoting a phrase (as opposed to a complete sentence) at the end of a sentence, I don’t see why my period should be appended to the quoted phrase which is correct without a period.
twickster is technically correct: what he describes is standard English. This rule, along with the third-person-impersonal “he*,” is one of my least favorite grammar rules.
If I were to be a grammar revolutionary, I’d put the punctuation where it made sense, not where the rules said to put it. By putting the punctuation inside the quote markes only when it was part of the quotation, the punctuation would serve to elucidate the sentence’s meaning. Currently, the punctuation does not serve this purpose as well as it could.
Daniel
I’m not gonna discuss this in this thread, no matter how hard anyone tries to make me. Just mentioning it as a peeve.
In that case, you would end your quoted phrase with an ellipsis to indicate the phrase continued beyond what you had quoted. If your own sentence ended with this ellipsis, then you would add a period to the end of it.
When quoting code, the sentence should be rearranged so as to isolate the code from end punctuation and other potentially confusing marks.
Not possible under standard American rules. If the quoted code occurs in the middle of the sentence then one should place a comma inside the quotes to return to the main sentence.
Common American English usage puts periods and commas inside quotation marks. All other punctuation goes outside. I am not sure about British English. I am always mixing this up with the comma before the “and” in a list of items, which I happen to know the Yanks and Limeys do differently.
The idea of putting punctuation inside quotation marks bothers me. It is an artifact of the print biz. Printers put these punctuation inside quotes to free up space. I don’t remember the exact details; all I remember is that this is the reason and apparently the only reason.
The biggest rule of all in writing, which is important for non-fiction writing and essential for technical writing, is: sacrifice rules in the name of clarity and accuracy.
For this reason, a period or comma should never go inside quotations that mark a computer command, and so forth, that needs to appear exactly as written.
The best solution in our modern age is to use a distinctive treatment other than quotations. In writing about command-line strings, I often use a combination of monospace font, bold, and italic. I do not use quotation marks in technical writing except when I am quoting what someone has said or written.
If you’re stuck with one font, one weight, one angle, then use asterisks for emphasis.
My opinion is that this convention is going to end up like the ‘two spaces after a period’ convention, which was also based on typesetting standards.
I believe logical consistency and clarity will win out in the end.
But of course I’m a ridiculous optimist who also believes that the Red Sox will win the series in my lifetime and… hey wait a minute!
Rush out and buy yourself a copy of Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation by Lynn Truss. It covers this subject and it’s interesting and funny.
Bottom line: Americans and Brits have different rules.
When I’m writing technical material (which is about half of my writing these days), I sacrifice “correctness” for clarity. If there’s any chance of confusing someone by sticking a punctuation mark inside the quotes, I’ll put it outside, and then remember to mark it “stet” when it comes back from the proofreaders and copyeditors.
I agree with what’s been said about standard usage. And, while I’m usually the first to stand up and rabidly defend the traditional with regard to the English language, I won’t in this case.
I’ve advocated and used logical quotation for a good decade-or-so, with no backlash and only the occasional raised eyebrow. If you’re commited to a style guide and a closed-minded editor I suppose you’re stuck, but for most purposes it improves clarity without harming credibility.
If you really want me to, I can unload a number of citations supporting Twickster’s correct and factual answers. The above is strictly my own opinion and experience. Your milage may vary.
