Endangered Punctuation

[sr71plt]

I am not giving guidance to anyone - just commenting. I was agreeing with dr_mabeuse and his assertion that in some instances the comma inside the quotation marks seems to make no sense. I was also confused that you changed the sentence he used as an example by inserting a second 'we'. Just comments and observations and I did say I was British.

In British instances. Not American. That's a significant point to establish when commenting on what/who should be doing what.

I didn't change the sentence by adding "we," I made it conform to American publishing standards.

Dr. M. should be familiar with American standards. I've edited two of his published books. (wow, what a surprise! )

 

[Goldie Munro]

In British instances. Not American. That's a significant point to establish when commenting on what/who should be doing what.

I didn't change the sentence by adding "we," I made it conform to American publishing standards.

Dr. M. should be familiar with American standards. I've edited two of his published books. (wow, what a surprise! )

Dr. M (sorry for dragging you into this) is familiar with American standards. I was responding to a point he made about those standards.

Can I just establish AGAIN that I am British? I said it before but it seems that I have to say it again. I SAID I WAS BRITISH.

I get down on my British knees in front of the American Publishing Standards and promise that I will never EVER comment on a comment on anything that might have anything to do with the American Publishing Standards again. EVER.

Even though, as a human being, I think I might have some rights to express an opinion on anything I wish, I promise (fingers crossed behind my back) to never comment on the way that Americans have to punctuate as dictated by the American Publishing Standards

Just keep tucking those punctuation marks right inside those quotations marks like you have to - no sweat off my brow at all - and just carry on repeating the subject in clauses. If that's the way you have to do it then do it. Don't ever think of changing it - we all know that language, written or spoken, stays the same forever so you'll be ok.

I am sorry if I offended anyone - didn't mean to. Me and my big British mouth.

 

[sr71plt]

Don't be silly. The point is that the American system and British system do need to be distinguished or writers in each can be screwed up by what is posted here.

You don't have to be asinine about it.

And, by the way, Dr. M. writes and publishes in the American system.

 

[PurrfectMoon]

I appreciate the star wars example in that article.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Don't be silly. The point is that the American system and British system do need to be distinguished or writers in each can be screwed up by what is posted here.

You don't have to be asinine about it.

And, by the way, Dr. M. writes and publishes in the American system.

I never questioned the system that Dr.M uses! I made a comment on a comment he made about the system he uses.

Really it's a pretty moot point. I understand American writing and Americans understand British writing. Jeez we all understand Joyce with relatively no punctuation. Punctuation is a tool that can be used to aid meaning or to be used creatively.

Me asinine? Well that's a debatable! Maybe you shouldn't be so pompous? Again we could debate that if you want?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

...

I doubt that will catch on in the American system. Always tucking the punctuation inside the quote marks is much easier to remember. The British system just invites unnecessary consideration of minutia.

You mean, always tucking the punctuation outside the quote marks except when they're commas or periods, in which case they go inside the quote marks, is much easier to remember.

Yeah. Maybe it's easier for you. It never made any sense to me, or to a lot of other people. The British system has ONE rule for where punctuation goes in quotes (outside), while the American has 5, depending on the mark.

Talk about minutia! Consider examples of Proper American punctuation:

We went to see "Thor," but didn't like it. (comma inside quotes)

but,

We went to see "Thor"; we didn't like it. (semi-colon outside.)

And,

We liked "Thor." (period inside quotes)
but
We hated "Thor"! (exclamation point outside quotes)

Do you want to see "Thor"? (Question mark outside the quotes)

One of the most important uses of quotation marks is to guarantee that what's brtween them is literal, verbatim, or exact. The name of the movie is "Thor". Its not "Thor," or "Thor." So including the punctuation within the quote
gives a falso idea of what the name of the movie really is.

It might interest you (or at least some of you), that the comma rule changes sides when used in parentheses. As shown directly above, when a comma belongs at the end of a parenthetical, the comma goes outside this parenthesis rather than inside, where it would go if the parentheses had been quotation marks.


Dr.M does write in the American system but finds nothing sancra sanct about its rules, which are often random and fussy and silly and follow the whims of a coterie of academic grammar mavens who rule by decree. Following the rules of grammar shows you're a conscientious student. Following them excessively shows you're a conscientious drudge.

 

[Goldie Munro]

You mean, always tucking the punctuation outside the quote marks except when they're commas or periods, in which case they go inside the quote marks, is much easier to remember.

Yeah. Maybe it's easier for you. It never made any sense to me, or to a lot of other people. The British system has ONE rule for where punctuation goes in quotes (outside), while the American has 5, depending on the mark.

Talk about minutia! Consider examples of Proper American punctuation:

We went to see "Thor," but didn't like it. (comma inside quotes)

but,

We went to see "Thor"; we didn't like it. (semi-colon outside.)

And,

We liked "Thor." (period inside quotes)
but
We hated "Thor"! (exclamation point outside quotes)

Do you want to see "Thor"? (Question mark outside the quotes)

One of the most important uses of quotation marks is to guarantee that what's brtween them is literal, verbatim, or exact. The name of the movie is "Thor". Its not "Thor," or "Thor." So including the punctuation within the quote
gives a falso idea of what the name of the movie really is.

It might interest you (or at least some of you), that the comma rule changes sides when used in parentheses. As shown directly above, when a comma belongs at the end of a parenthetical, the comma goes outside this parenthesis rather than inside, where it would go if the parentheses had been quotation marks.

LOL you are making my head spin and I though British punctuation was complex!

 

[sr71plt]

I never questioned the system that Dr.M uses! I made a comment on a comment he made about the system he uses.

Really it's a pretty moot point. I understand American writing and Americans understand British writing. Jeez we all understand Joyce with relatively no punctuation. Punctuation is a tool that can be used to aid meaning or to be used creatively.

Me asinine? Well that's a debatable! Maybe you shouldn't be so pompous? Again we could debate that if you want?

Um, no, point of order. In posting #47, you challenged my wording of a sentence (which is correct in the American system) and you didn't mention anything about British system at all.

Let's not be changing the goalposts on what you actually posted.

And, yes, your "excuse me for being British" rant was over the top and asinine. And snotty as well. You weren't showing any willingness to discuss the issue politely at all.

All I was doing was keeping the two systems separate. Most writers on Lit. don't understand there are two different systems. Their heads go revolving and they are confused about what to do when they don't understand the context in which they write. Do you quiibble with this point?

And also people like you drop on the heads of people like me when they are talking one system and I was talking another. And then sometimes they wind up getting snotty about it.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Um, no, point of order. In posting #47, you challenged my wording of a sentence (which is correct in the American system) and you didn't mention anything about British system at all.

Let's not be changing the goalposts on what you actually posted.

And, yes, your "excuse me for being British" rant was over the top and assinine. And snotty as well.

All I was doing was keeping the two systems separate. Most writers on Lit. don't understand there are two different systems. Their heads go revolving and they are confused about what to do when they don't understand the context in which they write.

And also people like you drop on the heads of people like me when they are talking one system and I was talking another. And then sometimes they wind up getting snotty about it.

Oh dear. People like me? Drop on the heads of people like you? I don't know you and you certainly don't know me.

Ok I am sorry for being snotty - i admit I was being just a tad sarcastic in my 'asinine' post to you, but only because you were giving it the 'i am an editor' thing. I admit I didn't know there was an American system but really - I was just commenting on a point - I wasn't having a go at you or your system. Hands up - mea culpa - just having a discussion on a topic I like. The minutia of grammar can be taken too seriously sometimes - I love language and grammar but I also love creativity and going with the flow.

Lets agree to disagree or to not understand people like ourselves.

 

[ishtat]

Australian usage is mixed. Most publishers here, say they follow British convention, but it's easy enough to find work which is clearly edited with American standards in mind. Worst of all there is an Australian style manual which attempts to assert that there is distinctively Australian way of doing things.

It seems daft to me, to suggest that an English speaking nation, with a population less than that of Texas should try to be different, particularly as its publishing industry is negligible. After all Texans don't have their own language or style manual, do they?

I have a daughter who has published half a dozen children's books. She usually writes in 'American' because it is the most important market. Recently, however, a British publisher produced one of her books and had it edited in India. The technical standards of the Indian editor were almost faultless but perhaps a bit old fashioned. But as India (not UK) is the market in this instance, she does as she is told.

Our newspapers are a muddle, News Corporation says it follows both American style and spelling. They generally get the spelling they want but the punctuation can most kindly be described as hybrid. Non News Corporation papers are supposed followers of the Brits, but the standard of sub-editing is so dire in both cases, it sometimes looks as though they have employed a bunch of Greek greengrocers.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Australian usage is mixed. Most publishers here, say they follow British convention, but it's easy enough to find work which is clearly edited with American standards in mind. Worst of all there is an Australian style manual which attempts to assert that there is distinctively Australian way of doing things.

It seems daft to me, to suggest that an English speaking nation, with a population less than that of Texas should try to be different, particularly as its publishing industry is negligible. After all Texans don't have their own language or style manual, do they?

I have a daughter who has published half a dozen children's books. She usually writes in 'American' because it is the most important market. Recently, however, a British publisher produced one of her books and had it edited in India. The technical standards of the Indian editor were almost faultless but perhaps a bit old fashioned. But as India (not UK) is the market in this instance, she does as she is told.

Our newspapers are a muddle, News Corporation says it follows both American style and spelling. They generally get the spelling they want but the punctuation can most kindly be described as hybrid. Non News Corporation papers are supposed followers of the Brits, but the standard of sub-editing is so dire in both cases, it sometimes looks as though they have employed a bunch of Greek greengrocers.

Oh don't wade in with the Australian stuff now! Grammar has gone global! Yeah it's a mess - as I have said before as long as meaning is clear I don't think too many folks mind which system is used. (please don't make me supplicate to Australia too! )

 

[sr71plt]

You mean, always tucking the punctuation outside the quote marks except when they're commas or periods, in which case they go inside the quote marks, is much easier to remember.
.

No I don't mean that. The topic was the relationship of commas to quotes.

You're moving the goalposts too.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh dear. People like me? Drop on the heads of people like you? I don't know you and you certainly don't know me.

Ok I am sorry for being snotty - i admit I was being just a tad sarcastic in my 'asinine' post to you, but only because you were giving it the 'i am an editor' thing. I admit I didn't know there was an American system but really - I was just commenting on a point - I wasn't having a go at you or your system. Hands up - mea culpa - just having a discussion on a topic I like. The minutia of grammar can be taken too seriously sometimes - I love language and grammar but I also love creativity and going with the flow.

Lets agree to disagree or to not understand people like ourselves.

So, it's a crime to talk like an editor when I am an editor?

Oh, that's right, the fallacy of the Internet that we have to respect is that every poster has equal knowledge of everything. Even when that's an idiotic notion.

I'm not all the wild about minutia myself. As an editor, show me the standard to follow, and by George I'll follow it. I know it would be more fun to confuse the reader and ruin their ability to get down to the content because standards weren't followed in punctuation, grammar, and spelling. But, hey, the editor has to be creative and have his/her oar in the water too.

And in the case here, it's just dandy to encourage an American system writer to write in British style for an American audience and vice versa. Because, that would be so fun to keep them confused.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh don't wade in with the Australian stuff now! Grammar has gone global! Yeah it's a mess - as I have said before as long as meaning is clear I don't think too many folks mind which system is used. (please don't make me supplicate to Australia too! )

On Literotica, that should be fine--as long as it's internally consistent.

As far as publishing? Absolutely not. Publishers in the various markets still insist on writing to their market.

I know, I know. Writers just gotta be creative--even when it confuses the reader.

Unfortunately for writers, the readers have to buy it, so the publishers care more about the reader than the writer's need to be individualistic.

But on Lit., yeah, just do your thing. Right up until the bot rejects your story.

 

[Goldie Munro]

So, it's a crime to talk like an editor when I am an editor?

Oh, that's right, the fallacy of the Internet that we have to respect is that every poster has equal knowledge of everything. Even when that's an idiotic notion.

I'm not all the wild about minutia myself. As an editor, show me the standard to follow, and by George I'll follow it. I know it would be more fun to confuse the reader and ruin their ability to get down to the content because standards weren't followed in punctuation, grammar, and spelling. But, hey, the editor has to be creative and have his/her oar in the water too.

And in the case here, it's just dandy to encourage an American system writer to write in British style for an American audience and vice versa. Because, that would be so fun to keep them confused.

Boy you really don't respect me and my un-editor ways do you? You don't seem to see that Americans read British writers and vice versa without much problem.

Didn't really want to do this but if we are talking non-respect and being asinine you started it mate with this comment:

'Feel free to look it up or to consult the publishing house you edit for.'

That was a nice little put down from the start. As I said you know nothing about me - who I am or what i do. I can assume from your name that you are, or were, a SR 71 A pilot and that you are an editor. I hold both of those positions in high esteem (the SR 71 A pilot in particular.) Does that give you the right to demean someone you do not know and have only met briefly on a thread of an erotic writing forum? And by the way I have never encouraged anyone to use the 'British System' over the 'American System'. (God help me I will never forget there is one now!)

Please get some sense of perspective. I am not having a go at you - never was. You have blown this out of all proportion by being pompous. That is my only criticism.

 

[sr71plt]

Boy you really don't respect me and my un-editor ways do you? You don't seem to see that Americans read British writers and vice versa without much problem.

Didn't really want to do this but if we are talking non-respect and being asinine you started it mate with this comment:

'Feel free to look it up or to consult the publishing house you edit for.'

That was a nice little put down from the start. As I said you know nothing about me - who I am or what i do. I can assume from your name that you are, or were, a SR 71 A pilot and that you are an editor. I hold both of those positions in high esteem (the SR 71 A pilot in particular.) Does that give you the right to demean someone you do not know and have only met briefly on a thread of an erotic writing forum? And by the way I have never encouraged anyone to use the 'British System' over the 'American System'. (God help me I will never forget there is one now!)

Please get some sense of perspective. I am not having a go at you - never was. You have blown this out of all proportion by being pompous. That is my only criticism.

OK, I'll simply say it again, since you want to dance around it. We have both British and American systems writers here. Which is fine. When you don't keep clear which system you are commenting on, you confuse writers here--most of whom don't even realize that there are fundamental differences in style in the two systems. And, not incidentally, you get into cross-purposes "discussions" as you led us into with your post #47.

In your #47 post you attacked my response to an American system writer on American style. And you did so without saying you were speaking from British system. You just said I was wrong. And I wasn't. I can dig up the American system authority if you really want me too.

That's where it started unraveling. You started the unraveling.

And NOTHING I have posted to this thread is as pompous or over the top and nasty as your "Pardon me for being British" diatribe.

And I won't respond to anything else you brought up in your last post because it doesn't relate to anything I ever posted.

 

[Goldie Munro]

OK, I'll simply say it again, since you want to dance around it. We have both British and American systems writers here. Which is fine. When you don't keep clear which system you are commenting on, you confuse writers here--most of whom don't even realize that there are fundamental differences in style in the two systems. And, not incidentally, you get into cross-purposes "discussions" as you led us into with your post #47.

In your #47 post you attacked my response to an American system writer on American style. And you did so without saying you were speaking from British system. You just said I was wrong. And I wasn't. I can dig up the American system authority if you really want me too.

That's where it started unraveling. You started the unraveling.

And NOTHING I have posted to this thread is as pompous or over the top and nasty as your "Pardon me for being British" diatribe.

And I won't respond to anything else you brought up in your last post because it doesn't relate to anything I ever posted.

Look I am not being nasty and i apologised for my sarcastic post. Really I am not a nasty person - ask anyone on here who knows me.

I didn't say i was British in my first post to you because i mistakenly thought that anyone interested in this topic might have read the posts before - i wasn't trying to dupe you.

I didn't 'attack' you in my post #47. I did not say you were wrong! This is what i said:

'You can repeat the second 'we' but it isn't grammatically necessary - the pronoun has been established in the first part of the sentence.'


I was just making a point - it was you who then 'attacked' me with your 'whatever editing house you work for' comment.

I apologised for not understanding there was an American system (and for my glib and sarcastic post) - what i was and still am challenging is your pomposity and the ease with which you chose to put me down after thinking i had 'attacked' you with my comment. A simple explanation of the different systems would have sufficed.

Can we stop this now? It's silly.

 

[oggbashan]

The original advice was for internal use.

Any company or organisation can decide on stylistic matters including the preferred usage of particular words or phrases, and expect its employees to follow the company manual. One company I worked for had a large manual on use of its logo, its trade name and its full title, showing how and when each should be used, and which was appropriate in a publication or on signs.

They also had a word-processing manual which covered details such as how to date communications e.g. 3 July 2011 for UK use, July 3, 2011 for communications to the US. Uses that were not recommended were: 3rd July 11, July 3rd, 2011, 3 Jul 2011 etc. They recommended Courier 12 point, left-justified, right-ragged, and a particular style sheet for letters, another for internal memos, a third for permanent instructions etc.

Oxford have now withdrawn the advice. The Oxford Comma lives!

 

[Goldie Munro]

The original advice was for internal use.

Any company or organisation can decide on stylistic matters including the preferred usage of particular words or phrases, and expect its employees to follow the company manual. One company I worked for had a large manual on use of its logo, its trade name and its full title, showing how and when each should be used, and which was appropriate in a publication or on signs.

They also had a word-processing manual which covered details such as how to date communications e.g. 3 July 2011 for UK use, July 3, 2011 for communications to the US. Uses that were not recommended were: 3rd July 11, July 3rd, 2011, 3 Jul 2011 etc. They recommended Courier 12 point, left-justified, right-ragged, and a particular style sheet for letters, another for internal memos, a third for permanent instructions etc.

Oxford have now withdrawn the advice. The Oxford Comma lives!

Yeah - didn't think it would be gone for long!

 

[leyna]

Not to quibble, but this example is actually a "comma splice":
We went to the movies and saw "Thor", and then we went home.
There should be a semicolon or a period after Thor.
I tend to be of the school of thought that if it is part of the quote it's inside, otherwise it goes outside. But, unfortunately, the "new" rules dictate that I must teach it the other way :-/

 

[yourOwngood]

It seems to me that the semicolon is one of the most endangered species of punctuation. Semicolons are not a very important punctuation mark, but they can be used very effectively; They allow you to show continuation of thought, and indicate that the two separate ideas within the sentence maintain equal importance.

 

[ishtat]

Not to quibble, but this example is actually a "comma splice":
We went to the movies and saw "Thor", and then we went home.
There should be a semicolon or a period after Thor.
I tend to be of the school of thought that if it is part of the quote it's inside, otherwise it goes outside. But, unfortunately, the "new" rules dictate that I must teach it the other way :-/

Ah yes Lenya, but you also put !!!!! and !!!!!!! in a couple of posts. That's a hangin' offence in this thread.

Both the Brits and the Americans say, (I think) never more than 1 !.

 

[mynameisben]

"Punctuation is the opiate of the literati" - Karl 'Groucho' Marx

 

[leyna]

Ah yes Lenya, but you also put !!!!! and !!!!!!! in a couple of posts. That's a hangin' offence in this thread.

Both the Brits and the Americans say, (I think) never more than 1 !.

In a published piece, yes.
In a discussion, it's either that or all-caps, so I chose the lesser of two evils ;-)

 

[Pure]

the joys of quibbling

Doc said this is correct:

We went to the movies and saw "Thor," and then went home.
----
Sr71 says this is correct:
//Perhaps you mean:

We went to the movies and saw "Thor", and then we went home.//
------

Leyna says sr71 is incorrect due to 'comma splice', and [I think] this is correct:

We went to the movies and saw "Thor"; and then we went home.

Leyna: Not to quibble, but this example is actually a "comma splice":

We went to the movies and saw "Thor", and then we went home.
There should be a semicolon or a period after Thor.

[L did not mention that, following her approach, deleting the "and"
would be highly desirable.]

====
pure says, this is correct, though a bit affected:

P: We went to the movies and saw "Thor" and then went home.

leyna, you are not using 'comma splice' in its usual sense.
http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/comma_splices.htm

Sr's version is not actually a comma splice.