Terminology - What Does This Mean in English?

[Crispvs]

"I have a question concerning punctuation, specifically quotation marks. Which version is correct?"

B and D

Crispvs

[Vindex]

Hmmm...I always thought speech was ' not " ?

[Nathan Ross]

B is certainly correct - all punctuation goes inside direct quotes.

However, the second example is less simple. Both versions have their advocates - personally I would go for C, as the quoted words are excerpted from Smith's (presumed) statement, and the punctuation therefore relates to the sentence as a whole and not the quotation.

The Sussex University style guide by Larry Trask outlines the problem in full. Here's the relevant section:

Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation marks inside or outside the quotation marks. There are two schools of thought on this, which I shall call the logical view and the conventional view.

The logical view holds that the only punctuation marks which should be placed inside the quotation marks are those that form part of the quotation, while all others should be placed outside. The conventional view, in contrast, insists on placing most other punctuation marks inside a closing quote, regardless of whether they form part of the quotation. Here are two sentences punctuated according to the logical view:

"The only thing we have to fear", said Franklin Roosevelt, "is fear itself."
The Prime Minister condemned what he called "simple-minded solutions".

And here they are punctuated according to the conventional view:

"The only thing we have to fear," said Franklin Roosevelt, "is fear itself."
The Prime Minister condemned what he called "simple-minded solutions."

Note the placing of the comma after fear in the first example and of the final full stop in the second. These are not part of their quotations, and so the logical view places them outside the quote marks, while the conventional view places them inside, on the theory that a closing quote should always follow another punctuation mark.

Which view should we prefer? I certainly prefer the logical view, and, in a perfect world, I would simply advise you to stick to this view. However, it is a fact that very many people have been taught the conventional view and adhere to it rigorously. Many of these people occupy influential positions — for example, quite a few of them are copy-editors for major publishers. Consequently, if you try to adhere to the logical view, you are likely to encounter a good deal of resistance. The linguist Geoff Pullum, a fervent advocate of the logical view, once got so angry at copy-editors who insisted on reshuffling his carefully placed punctuation that he wrote an article called `Punctuation and human freedom' (Pullum 1984). Here is one of his examples, first with logical punctuation:

Shakespeare's play Richard III contains the line "Now is the winter of our discontent".

This is true. Now try it with conventional punctuation:

Shakespeare's play Richard III contains the line "Now is the winter of our discontent."

This is strictly false, since the line in question is only the first of two lines making up a complete sentence, and hence does not end in a full stop, as apparently suggested by the conventional punctuation:

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York.

The same point arises in the General Sedgwick example:

General Sedgwick's last words to his worried staff were "Don't worry, boys; they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist—".

Here, putting the full stop inside the closing quotes, as required by the conventionalists, would produce an idiotic result, since the whole point of the quotation is that the lamented general didn't live long enough to finish it.

You may follow your own preference in this matter, so long as you are consistent. If you opt for logical punctuation, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are on the side of the angels, but you should also expect some grim opposition from the other side.

[mcbishop]

Hmmm...I always thought speech was ' not " ?

Speech marks should be ' in the UK and " in the USA, quotes within quotes using the alternative. So

'He said "hello!" to me' in the UK but "he said 'hello!' to me" in the US

...except of course those are 'sexless' quotes which really only mean minutes and seconds in typesetting when giving latlong coordinates (mixtures of sexed and sexless quotes are the bane of this typesetter's life). And let's not even get started on guillemets in German etc. Read this and weep.

Mike Bishop

[Eleatic Guest]

There are two schools of thought on this, which I shall call the logical view and the conventional view.....If you opt for logical punctuation, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are on the side of the angels, but you should also expect some grim opposition from the other side. [/color]

Funny, that is exactly my issue. I used the logical view (A and C, also correct in German grammar) throughout my entire article and now I am getting cold feet, thinking why should I be an iconoclast, why bother, go with the mainstream view instead (B and D).

[D B Campbell]

... the mainstream view instead (B and D).

As Cheryl already said, B and D are American usage. Whether or not that qualifies as "mainstream" depends on where you live. :wink:

[Eleatic Guest]

... the mainstream view instead (B and D).

As Cheryl already said, B and D are American usage. Whether or not that qualifies as "mainstream" depends on where you live. :wink:

Is there a difference between AE and BE here? I was not aware of this. I am actually trying to stay faithful to BE in the article.

[D B Campbell]

Is there a difference between AE and BE here?

British (Oxford) English is a little fiddly when it's dealing with quoted matter. American usage contains all punctuation within the quotation marks (as in your B and D). In British (Oxford) English, only punctuation that was in the original quotation stays inside the quotation marks, and the sentence retains its own logic (e.g. sentence C still ends with a full stop; the American version has a trailing pair of quotation marks -- it gets worse if you're referencing the quote and you need to stick a superscript note number on the end). In your A and C, there was no punctuation inside the quoted matter, so it's perfectly straightforward.

(The American system seems easier, as it's a blanket rule -- easier, that is, if you're not used to the British system!)

[Eleatic Guest]

Do you use a word construction like "(cf. e.g. fig. 1)" or do you think this is too pretentious and "(e.g. fig. 1") will do about the same job?

[Eleatic Guest]

I know this sounds silly, but could you write down "Tropis" into Greek? It is here (16 MB), and I would like to copy & paste it to another site.

[Renatus]

I hope that this is what you want. I have written it in upper case, lower case and lower case with a capital T. This is ancient Greek, so the lower case sigma may not be appropriate; I know nothing of modern Greek:

ΤΡΟΠΙΣ
Τροπις
τροπις

[Eleatic Guest]

Thanks. What does it mean anyway?

PS: This - "(with a good) ship's keel"?

[Timianus]

Re: punctuation in quotations.

I think the "conventional" view is what is widely used, at least here in the USA. The problem I have with the "conventional" view is that in my profession (law) we make extensive use of quotations and often incorporate several quotations into a single sentence. Using the "conventional" method, we are forced to litter such sentences with "[]" to indicate a change in punctuation from the source quote. An example:

The court of appeals ruled that "the economic loss doctrine does not apply to service contracts[,]" but that ruling does not apply here.

The comma is being used to separate independent clauses of a sentence with different subjects. It does not relate to the quote itself. Visually, the sentence is much easier to read if the comma is placed outside the quotation marks and there are no brackets, but I am often forced to write it in the "conventional" way.

[D B Campbell]

Don't forget the accent: τρόπις

[Renatus]

What does it mean anyway?

According to Liddell & Scott, 'a ship's keel'.