241–250 of 393 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4-letter-long and above prepositions are capitalized. Can't remember where I got that rule, but they're probably using that; I use it for my music collection.
It's called title case, and it's not determined by the length of a word but by whether or not a word is minor. The rules defining minor words vary slightly between styles, but they're usually prepositions and articles.
“this.”
“this”.
‘this’.
The middle version looks objectively worse than the first or last.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is the reason why, IMHO, the American way is objectively wrong. Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, but a quotation style that enforces incorrect quotations is not good.
It seems wrong because it is. > Question marks and exclamation points have their own rules. > If they apply to the quoted material, they go within the quotation marks. If they apply to the whole sentence, they go outside it https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/
> The password is ’%>>~|]#^|,’ which is awesome.
Which is, as far as I know, correct according to the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space should be an "espace fine" (espace is feminine in that context), meaning a smaller space (En Space) than the normal space (Em Space). The En Space is non-breakable, but the normal non-breakable space is Em in length, and therefore improper.
Hmmm, that's true: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espace_fine_ins%C3%A9cable However, LibreOffice inserts a non-breaking space U+00A0 instead :(
Reminds me of https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekat%C3%B6r
Does anyone have any thoughts on date formats? E.g. d/m/y vs. m/d/y?
8601 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 which can be any of these: YYYY-MM-DD YYYY-MM YYYYMMDD
The British style works best with the Penguin style of using single quotes for the outer level of quotation rather than double quotes. Part of the reason we write “this.” is for esthetics. Compare: “this.” “this”. ‘this’. The middle version looks objectively worse than the first or last.
The British style works best with the Penguin style of using single quotes for the outer level of quotation rather than double quotes. Part of the reason we write “this.” is for esthetics. Compare: “this.” “this”. ‘this’. The middle version looks objectively worse than the first or last.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A footnote in the article addresses this: "More logical still would be to have two periods, one marking the end of the quoted sentence and the other the end of the top-level sentence. But that would be redundant and also look ugly." I tend to agree with the author. While it's logically consistent, it's typographically redundant. There's no need to end a sentence with a full stop, a quotation mark, another full stop,…
I don't see why it is redundant. There is no reason to assume that the quoted sentence ends the quoting sentence. Imagine this being the last thing you see on a page. Without turning the page, there would be no way of knowing whether the quoting sentence is complete. But these things are just conventions. It's futile to demand any kind of logic or consistency.
and he said: "Mary, let's go
--- page ---
fishing".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you define "?!" vs "!?" ? I agree they're different. To me the "greater" feeling comes second. "?!" is more surprising, while "!?" is more confusing. With "‽" the feelings are equal.
I agree with you on ‽, but differ with you on the "!?" and "?!" -- for me, the first character is the stronger marker of sentiment.
Are you just going to stand there and lie through your teeth?!
Have you ever seen such an amazing sunset!?
"[...] the first game was better, but not in a good way"
There's no need to use the full stop inside the quote to show that the sentence had ended. That can be the default, because most time it doesn't matter, but in the cases where it is relevant to show that there's content after, then why not:
"I thought the first game was better [...]"