Punctuation Bleg

I was fortunate to learn very early on (maybe first year HS or even before) the rule that but for a single exception, all punctuation always goes inside quotation marks -- that sole exception being a question mark, when the sentence as a whole is a question but the quoted material is not, in itself.

I see this -- "This is an example". -- all the time and it drives me crazy. Please, people.

Comments

[M.]

You know I've always wondered about that. And since I fancy myself as a writer, that is a handy piece of knowledge to have. Thanks.

[boo]

Actually, the exception includes exclamation marks, not just question marks.

Also, remember that this is the American system of quotations. Most non-American English speakers (who greatly outnumber Americans) follow the British system, wherein the positioning of periods and commas is based on the same logic that is used for question marks in the American system. Note that in circles where people care about these things, many Americans strongly advocate the British system.

[Richard Nikoley]

Yea, I don't recall reading about exclamation marks in the "rule book," but I've always treated it the same way, though an exclamation is subjective, whereas a question is objective, so there's an ambiguity.

From what I can tell, the original convention is as the American's do it, and it's an artifact of typesetting. I also understand that for the British, it's either/or. Some publications use the old way (the American way).

[Billy Beck]

"...but for a single exception, all punctuation always goes inside quotation marks..."

It's not what I was taught, and earlier than high school, too. Consider this:

(example)

He said, "I left the money on the table", but it wasn't true.

(/example)

That second comma is not a part of the quoted statement, and that's why it does not belong inside the quotation. (Note that this is also true of the first comma, and isn't it curious: nobody ever thinks of including that first one in the quote marks.)

There is a logic to this stuff, and that's what makes the "all inside the quote marks" rule arbitrary and ridiculous.

I practice what I was taught because it makes sense.

[Richard Nikoley]

"....arbitrary and ridiculous."

Arbitrary, perhaps. But according to Wikipedia, the rule originated with typesetting, apparently as a function of the little lead bits that needed to be set into the lead printing drum. If that's the case, there were practical reasons to do it that way, which would make it decidedly non-arbitrary. And if it wasn't arbitrary then, it seems reasonable to hold to the rule for the logical continuity of still having lots of old stuff in print.

Ridiculous? That's an odd judgement coming from you, I must say. I don't think having consistent rules for grammar and punctuation is ridiculous. Quite the contrary.

Regarding your example, how come you didn't include a period within the quotes, then, presuming you're quoting a sentence?

And, regarding my quoting of you, above, if you had written that, would you have included the period within or outside the quote? I included it inside, not only because it's the rule, but also, it could be said, because you put a period there.

I don't think you've accounted for all the logic involved.

[Billy Beck]

"If that's the case, there were practical reasons to do it that way,..."

I am not a typesetter.

Do you understand? Let me explain:

"Ridiculous? That's an odd judgement coming from you, I must say. I don't think having consistent rules for grammar and punctuation is ridiculous."

We're not talking about grammar, anymore, if I'm to take your argument at face value. We're talking about the convenience of technicians, dictating the logic of grammar.... which it isn't anymore, of course: it's now the logic of typesetting.

"And, regarding my quoting of you, above, if you had written that, would you have included the period within or outside the quote?"

I would have done it exactly the way that you did. That's because the quote is presented all by itself, and not as a part of an original statement from you. Can you see that difference?

[Kyle Bennett]

Modifying Billy's example to:

He said, "I left the money on the table.", but it wasn't true.

Would look ridiculous, and cause confusion. That period inside the quote would be required by Rich's logic, no?

I think these are also incorrect:

He said, "I left money on the table.".

Did he say, "I left money on the table."?

Did he say, "Is there money on the table?"?

I think these are correct:

He said, "I left money on the table", but it wasn't true.

He asked, "Is there money on the table?", as if he didn't know.

He said, "I left money on the table".

He asked, "Is there money on the table?".

Did he say, "Is there money on the table?"

Did he say, "I left money on the table"?

Did he yell, "Fire!"?

Officer, arrest him! He yelled, "Fire!"

That last one is tricky, because you don't know it's an exclamation without the additional context, but:

He yelled, "Fire!"!

looks wrong, too. If I had to describe that scene, I'd punt:

He yelled, "Fire!" in a crowded theater!

I think two rules sum it up, and the distinction is syntactic marks (period, comma, etc.) vs semantic marks (question, bang).

1. Syntactic marks always on the outside.

2. Semantic marks go where needed, but are never doubled up with the same semantic mark.

This is all going by what looks right to me, without any appeal to authority.

And since we're on the subject of grammar, Rich, are you "loosing" your mind? You've made that particular slip a few times lately, and it makes me cringe whenever I see it. I think it's the poster child for the decline of literate western civilization.

I wasn't gonna say anything, but since you brought it up...

[Richard Nikoley]

Gentlemen:

Before I get around to a more earnest response, something to consider. How come neither of you, when you block quote, don't employ "[sic]" when nearly all of the rest of the world uses the "conventional rule," that would of necessity be encapsulated within the block?

Huh? Being scrupulously consistent, logical, and principled in the exercise of both -- which is my general character assessment of the both of you -- how come you're not out "putting it to the world," in that respect?

[Kyle Bennett]

how come you're not out "putting it to the world,"

In regards to the punctuation, I only addressed the question of what is technically correct, not the question of what standards bloggers and commenters should be held to.

As to "loose", I see that as a different class of error, though you may see it otherwise. And I hope you don't seriously think I was accusing you of not knowing the difference, or making some demand that you clean up your act. It's a pet peeve of mine, not a jihad, and does not imply any demands directed toward you.

There's no hypocrisy in not complaining everywhere I go about every little grammatical error, nor in allowing some of them to slip into my own posting, even routinely, within the limits of reasonable diligence required by the particular context.

[Richard Nikoley]

Kyle:

I understood your comment -- admittedly quickly reviewed -- as in support of Billy's unconventional (well, that's what it is) use of punctuation.

I'll get to "loose" later. There's a story behind it.

[Sally]

Kyle asked for my opinion, so I provided it: "If a quote is a complete sentence, the punctuation goes within the quotes. Didn't you know that?"
He proceeded to throw my copy of Strunk & White to the side, saying, "Don't you know I don't care about that?"
I guess he doesn't...
...Methinks Richard, though not "loosing it", Billy, though referring to "whomever wishes to expound" Wikipedia, and Kyle, my own personal "know it all" all have a bit of grammar correcting (or, perhaps, ignoring) to do... Guess it all depends on what you were taught! (And I was taught the proper grammar by my 5th grade teacher! C'mon, guys - 'tis nice to be grammatically correct according to someone's rules, but don't you think consistency in one's own grammar is the ultimate arbiter & pooey with what another states?)

[Kyle Bennett]

Billy and I addressed different things, though the one point of overlap is the uncommented-upon omission of the period in his example, which I was supporting, and, further, think is the more conventional as defined by common usage.

[Billy Beck]

Rich: "How come neither of you, when you block quote, don't employ '[sic]'..."

A quick search at my place turns up twelve hits. Do I misunderstand your question?

Kyle: "Billy and I addressed different things, though the one point of overlap is the uncommented-upon omission of the period in his example,..."

I didn't even have to think about that one, for the reason that you stated, although the word that had occurred to me was, "absurd". As for "different things", I did emphasize the matter of leaving formal grammar to typesetters (! already) but my example sentence illustrates what you elaborated, and we agree.

[Richard Nikoley]

Gentlemen:

I'm getting to it (maybe; or I'll just chew at it -- like this), and sorry for not linking it prior, but Wikipedia really has a comprehensive treatment, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Punctuation

Note that there is allowance within the rule for when including punctuation within the quote would lead to ambiguity or logical error, such as in engineering or scientific works. Normal, everyday writing, I think, can handle the tinge of supposed logical ambiguity.

Seriously, guys; I wasn't sure that Billy's objection would be on logical grounds, which is my failing (what else could it -- his objection -- be?). But I must say that it all borders on the masturbatory. I'm just sayin'...

Observe, and you've probably received this in email a hundred times:

"I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

You know, this whole thing caused me to wonder if there's such a thing as "logic over cognition," as much of a contradiction in terms that represents in the apparent.

That said, do you know what's my primary issue? Aesthetics. Seeing the punctuation outside the closed quote hurts my eyes. That's why this whole thing was a "bleg," and not an imperative.

It certainly doesn't rise to the level of "poster child for the decline of literate western civilization." My poster child is mere and mundane things like "authorities" getting off on hurting other people, all whilst the populace loves those who love to hurt...but your mileage will vary, I guess.

Oh..."loose." I wrote a brochure for my first company back in 1992 and I made that error (noticed after the printing). It was the first time, to my knowledge, I'd ever made it. Now, I make it almost every time (go figure: the human brain). I catch it 9 of 10, but unfortunately, I get no help whatsoever from spelling checkers. I shall celebrate the advent of contextual spelling checkers (given the brash illogic of English spelling rules -- hint, hint), if they can ever make a good one.

[Richard Nikoley]

B:

Re: [sic]. I was referring specifically to block quotes where the quoted material would include punctuation within closed quotes according to -- what I'm terming -- the conventional rule, which you are holding as arbitray and ridiculous.

If you've indeed annotated (even some) those with [sic] to denote your disagreement with the usage then my assertion would be false.

[Billy Beck]

I'd misunderstood the question.

Now that I understand: {shrug} It just doesn't hurt my eyes that much.

[Richard Nikoley]

B:

I can go with {shrug}. It was a bleg.

[Richard Nikoley]

...Another tidbit, at risk of impertinence in Billy's eyes.

Like Kyle, I asked Bea what she thought. After She'd perused the post and comments, she was a bit amused. Paraphrasing:

'When you've fielded 5th-grader questions for 25 years about how this and that spelling, grammar, or punctuation rule doesn't make sense, you conclude: "there is no logic: It's right or it's wrong."'

[Billy Beck]

"there is no logic: It's right or it's wrong."

For real?

I mean, I don't know how it gets more arbitrary than that.

[Richard Nikoley]

OK, Billy. So where shall we begin? You start. Let's make all spelling, grammar, and punctuation rules and conventions for English thoroughly and mutually, logically consistent across the board.

It'll probably take the several thousand years to undo what's been done; or, we can just chalk it up to "that's the way it is," and move on.

And note: I am perfectly on board with your efforts to ensure logical consistency in conceptualization and meaning. Not what I'm talking about. And we haven't been talking about anything where an ambiguity or any important sort exists because a punctuation mark is inside a closed quote rather than outside of it.

Hell, I'll start. I propose that since the plural of 'foot' is 'feet,' that either we go with the plural of 'boot' as 'beet,' and change the name of the vegetable, or else just make it easier and go with 'foots.'

There. Only a few hundred thousand to go.

[Richard Nikoley]

...One thing to be thankful for, though, is that we refer to nouns in the gender neutral, unless explicitly masculine or feminine, with the minor exceptions of referring to a ship as "she," and whatnot. No so in all the romance languages. Everything is either masculine or feminine, and except for when explicity masculine or feminine (like male or female), everthing is one or the other, and it's wholly arbitrary, so far as I can tell. No ryme or reason to it.

You just gotta memorize 'em all. A ship (un batteau) was pretty easy in French. To them, it's masculine, not feminine ("une batteau"). Not a clue why, 'cause any logic that may have one been associated is quite irrelevant, today.

Should they be gettiin' to work, too?