The definition of a dumbass is someone who thinks a period goes outside of quotation marks.
But it does! (except in US English).
Has the matter been settled in Dear Old Blighty? Henry Fowler gave several column inches to it.
The two sysems are the conventional, stop inside inverted commas; and the logical, stop outside inverted commas. There is a lively debate, making this excellent fodder for rbr.
Quoting _Modern_English_Usage_:
The conventional system is more favoured by editors' and publishers' rules. But there are important exceptions, and it is to be hoped that these will make their influence felt. The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to se what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect; even the more pleasing apperance claimed for it is not likely to go unquestioned.
The definition of a dumbass is someone who thinks a period goes outside of quotation marks.
But it does! (except in US English).
Has the matter been settled in Dear Old Blighty? Henry Fowler gave several column inches to it.
The two sysems are the conventional, stop inside inverted commas; and the logical, stop outside inverted commas. There is a lively debate, making this excellent fodder for rbr.
<snip quote>
I dispute your use of "conventional" - the method you describe as the "logical" is the one in general use in the UK, and has been for as long as I can remember (and I'm an old fart who went to grammar school).
Fowler says "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense" (wth the last 4 words in italics).
in 488367 20051012 235926 MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:
>The definition of a dumbass is someone who thinks a period goes outside >of quotation marks.
But it does! (except in US English).
Has the matter been settled in Dear Old Blighty? Henry Fowler gave several column inches to it.
The two sysems are the conventional, stop inside inverted commas; and the logical, stop outside inverted commas. There is a lively debate, making this excellent fodder for rbr.
<snip quote>
I dispute your use of "conventional" - the method you describe as the "logical" is the one in general use in the UK, and has been for as long as I can remember (and I'm an old fart who went to grammar school).
Why dispute with me? `Conventional' is the term used in MEU. For me it is simply a label; and since it is used in at least one handbook of usage it is useful. Take some full breaths, and do not read a value judgment into it.
Quoted message said:
Fowler says "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense" (wth the last 4 words in italics).
Which article? I quoted the final paragraph of Stops-Inverted Commas, where he suggests sympathy for the users of both methods; and gives examples where neither method is entirely satisfactory.
Did you say `Am I my brother's keeper'? How heartrending was their cry `We are lost'!
In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
> in 488367 20051012 235926 MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The definition of a dumbass is someone who thinks a period goes outside > >of quotation marks. > > But it does! (except in US English).
Has the matter been settled in Dear Old Blighty? Henry Fowler gave several column inches to it.
The two sysems are the conventional, stop inside inverted commas; and the logical, stop outside inverted commas. There is a lively debate, making this excellent fodder for rbr.
<snip quote>
I dispute your use of "conventional" - the method you describe as the "logical" is the one in general use in the UK, and has been for as long as I can remember (and I'm an old fart who went to grammar school).
Why dispute with me? `Conventional' is the term used in MEU. For me it is simply a label; and since it is used in at least one handbook of usage it is useful. Take some full breaths, and do not read a value judgment into it.
Quoted message said:
Fowler says "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense" (wth the last 4 words in italics).
Which article? I quoted the final paragraph of Stops-Inverted Commas, where he suggests sympathy for the users of both methods; and gives examples where neither method is entirely satisfactory.
Did you say `Am I my brother's keeper'? How heartrending was their cry `We are lost'!
-- Michael Press
I've always thought this was a UK-US issue, with the style you referred to as conventional being the US one and the UK the other one. That makes your use of the word "conventional" a value judgement.
I was quoting from "The NEW Fowler's MEU" page 646 ("quotation marks" item 2). Fowler tries to be even-handed over US-UK differences but without saying when he is doing so.
I've always thought this was a UK-US issue, with the style you referred to as conventional being the US one and the UK the other one. That makes your use of the word "conventional" a value judgement.
You still do not get it. I did not invent the usage, and do not support either scheme for managing a full stop juxtaposed with inverted commas. I use it as a label because we need a label; and this one appears in a handbook of usage, to wit:
_Modern_English_Usage_ [1965], second edition, Oxford University Press, pp 591-592.
Breathe. Study the quotation from MEU that you excised.
in 488428 20051013 183439 Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:
>In article <[email hidden]>, >Bob Martin <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>in 488367 20051012 235926 MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >>>The definition of a dumbass is someone who thinks a period goes outside >>>of quotation marks. >> >>But it does! (except in US English). > >Has the matter been settled in Dear Old Blighty? >Henry Fowler gave several column inches to it. > >The two sysems are the conventional, stop inside inverted >commas; and the logical, stop outside inverted commas. >There is a lively debate, making this excellent fodder for >rbr.
<snip quote>
I dispute your use of "conventional" - the method you describe as the "logical" is the one in general use in the UK, and has been for as long as I can remember (and I'm an old fart who went to grammar school).
Why dispute with me? `Conventional' is the term used in MEU. For me it is simply a label; and since it is used in at least one handbook of usage it is useful. Take some full breaths, and do not read a value judgment into it.
Quoted message said:
Fowler says "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense" (wth the last 4 words in italics).
Which article? I quoted the final paragraph of Stops-Inverted Commas, where he suggests sympathy for the users of both methods; and gives examples where neither method is entirely satisfactory.
Did you say `Am I my brother's keeper'? How heartrending was their cry `We are lost'!
-- Michael Press
I was quoting from "The NEW Fowler's MEU" page 646 ("quotation marks" item 2). Fowler tries to be even-handed over US-UK differences but without saying when he is doing so.
just as an aside, i'm not sure, but i think "the new fowler's modern english usage" was actually written by r.w.burchfield. i copied this out of the intro: "fowler's name remains on the title-page, even though his book has largely been rewritten in this third edition."
anyway, let's not disregard the more important point that the post that started all this was a lame-o punctuation flame-o.
thanks, heather "in regard to other marks, when a comma, full point, colon, or semicolon is required at the end of a quotation, there is no reason for perpetuating the bad practice of their undiscriminating inclusion within the quotation marks at the end of an extract."
In article <[email hidden]>, h squared <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Bob Martin said:
in 488500 20051014 085313 Michael Press said:
In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
>in 488428 20051013 183439 Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>In article <[email hidden]>, >>Bob Martin <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >>>in 488367 20051012 235926 MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The definition of a dumbass is someone who thinks a period goes outside >>>>of quotation marks. >>> >>>But it does! (except in US English). >> >>Has the matter been settled in Dear Old Blighty? >>Henry Fowler gave several column inches to it. >> >>The two sysems are the conventional, stop inside inverted >>commas; and the logical, stop outside inverted commas. >>There is a lively debate, making this excellent fodder for >>rbr. > ><snip quote> > >I dispute your use of "conventional" - the method you describe as the >"logical" is the one in general use in the UK, and has been for as long >as I can remember (and I'm an old fart who went to grammar school).
Why dispute with me? `Conventional' is the term used in MEU. For me it is simply a label; and since it is used in at least one handbook of usage it is useful. Take some full breaths, and do not read a value judgment into it.
>Fowler says "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks >must be placed according to the sense" (wth the last 4 words in italics).
Which article? I quoted the final paragraph of Stops-Inverted Commas, where he suggests sympathy for the users of both methods; and gives examples where neither method is entirely satisfactory.
Did you say `Am I my brother's keeper'? How heartrending was their cry `We are lost'!
-- Michael Press
I was quoting from "The NEW Fowler's MEU" page 646 ("quotation marks" item 2). Fowler tries to be even-handed over US-UK differences but without saying when he is doing so.
just as an aside, i'm not sure, but i think "the new fowler's modern english usage" was actually written by r.w.burchfield. i copied this out of the intro: "fowler's name remains on the title-page, even though his book has largely been rewritten in this third edition."
anyway, let's not disregard the more important point that the post that started all this was a lame-o punctuation flame-o.
thanks, heather "in regard to other marks, when a comma, full point, colon, or semicolon is required at the end of a quotation, there is no reason for perpetuating the bad practice of their undiscriminating inclusion within the quotation marks at the end of an extract."
When Henry Fowler and brother Frank Fowler set out to write _The_King's_English_ they were in part responding to a plague of grammarians scolding `Thou shalt ...' and `Thou shalt not ...'. The result is a guide to writing that addresses the reader as a friend and collaborator, witty, and good hearted. What you quote sounds like the revenge of the grammarians.
"in regard to other marks, when a comma, full point, colon, or semicolon is required at the end of a quotation, there is no reason for perpetuating the bad practice of their undiscriminating inclusion within the quotation marks at the end of an extract."
When Henry Fowler and brother Frank Fowler set out to write _The_King's_English_ they were in part responding to a plague of grammarians scolding `Thou shalt ...' and `Thou shalt not ...'. The result is a guide to writing that addresses the reader as a friend and collaborator, witty, and good hearted. What you quote sounds like the revenge of the grammarians.
haven't read the other book, so i'll take your word, but i didn't read that quote as "the revenge of the grammarians" as it sounded like he was saying to do what makes sense and not to blindly follow rules (something i imagine grammarians advocating). but i guess it could sound a little like scolding- that's kind of why i put it there for mr. gorilla to read.
besides, my philosophy towards "grammar" should be clear from my lack of any, and you should laugh to see me discussing this subject at all 😉
