OP: When in Rome, do as the Greeks do because their way is better.
Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
351–360 of 393 posts
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you are used to the British style. Here's something that might clinch it for you: Does this "look better on the page"? Does this "look better on the page?" The former must be correct, since the quote was not a question, and turning it into one would not be a fair quotation. Why should its status as a question change where we put the end of sentence marker? The same argument applies to the period, since the quo…
Note that both American and British usage put a question mark outside the quotation marks. Only periods and commas are placed within the quotation marks in American style.
Nit: unless the question mark is part of the quote itself.
He asked her, “do you prefer the American style?”
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#353As a programmer, I’d prefer a combination of the two: Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded, “I refute it thus.”. as I think it’s weird that a punctuation mark inside a quote can end the sentence that contains the quote. I’d argue like this: in the above case there are two sentences, the quote and the sentence that contains the quote. Both need to be terminated with a period.
Technically, "I refute it thus" and "I refute it thus." are both valid quotations of a source that contains, in its entirety, "I refute it thus."
Is "rig" a valid quotation of "dirigibility"?
Is "go there" a valid quotation of "never go there"?
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#354Putting the period or comma within quotes (the US style) is like tucking your shirt in and then leaving a small part of it out.
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#355Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#356Earlier 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,…
For simplicity, every sentence should end with a full stop (period). Thus: How are you today?. This is important!. Which clearly demonstrates that ! and ? can appear in the middle of a sentence, just as ; and , can: I want to call to your attention this very important!! point: always checks the return value of your system calls. I do draw the line at introducing scoping operators though it would simplify the grammar.
The dot below ? and ! is the full stop.
Thus implying the existence of non-dotted versions for mid-sentence usage.
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#357Grownups don't worry about this stuff. Just like they don't worry about which programming language style guide to use.
If you're writing for an American audience, use American style. If you're writing for a British audience, use British style. If you're writing a journal article, or for a business, use whatever style everyone else there uses. If you're writing for yourself, use what you like.
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
> misplaced pedantry Them's mighty strong words there. > since the word comes from Greek through German, rather than Latin. That's not a rule. Remember, this is language. It does seems like a dated spelling though, similar to "coöperate". It shows up in 19th century publishing.
I still see it in some publications on occasion, but it's rare. I often write it as "coöperate" myself as well; it clarifies that the ö starts a new syllable and that it's "co-operate" rather than "coo-perate" with a single long o sound: it's just something you need to know. I find it regrettable that this has fallen out of favour, and especially with English becoming the de-facto world language I think there's some…
It is regrettable. As far as I know, the New Yorker is the only major publication that upholds the honor of the dieresis.
Re: Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American
#359Earlier 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.
Isn’t it a rule that if you quote a complete sentence it must end the quoting sentence?