We need a new kind of quote mark - and other neo-punctuations

[Britva415]

We need a kind of quote mark which indicates that what's enclosed is not a direct or accurate quote.

This is useful when paraphrasing, or for making clear that you're rhetorically putting words in someone's mouth without making people think that that was exactly what they said. It would be valuable to have this so that you could do this within the normal flow of text without having to spell out in extra words that it's a paraphrase or a rhetorical distortion of their real statement, or, do it this way anyway with standard quotation marks and then get accused later of misquoting.

Hmm, what would a pair of "pseudoquotes" look like? Hell, maybe pseudoquotes already exist?

Lemme go invent that real quick here - Maybe in a given language, we could establish the convention of using another language's typographical quotemarks to do this. No new characters needed.

I was talking to Boris, and he was all like «Duuuhh, you suuuuck!» I mean, that's not what he said, but you get the idea.

Tangentially,
I'm also a fan of the interrobang: ‽ which is just !? or ?! in one character.

I guess I was hoping that other people would be free to creatively think up neopunct's too, or, talk about ones which in fact have been developed recently to serve unmet needs.

 

[SimonDoom]

It would only work if everyone understood what your special quotes meant, and that's going to take a generation of widespread usage. In the example you gave, they're not needed, because you make the meaning clear with the following sentence. If you left the line exactly as is but replaced the arrows with normal quotation marks, no shade of meaning would be lost.

 

[Britva415]

It would only work if everyone understood what your special quotes meant, and that's going to take a generation of widespread usage. In the example you gave, they're not needed, because you make the meaning clear with the following sentence. If you left the line exactly as is but replaced the arrows with normal quotation marks, no shade of meaning would be lost.

Sure, in my weak example, you're right.

I still see the utility.

And of course everyone would have to be aware of the convention, whether it's a new typographic mark or just a novel use of an existing one.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sure, in my weak example, you're right.

I still see the utility.

And of course everyone would have to be aware of the convention, whether it's a new typographic mark or just a novel use of an existing one.

I wish you well in your endeavor to change the English language! No one can question the boldness of your ambition.

 

[jaF0]

I've always used the single quote as 'not exactly a quote' and the double as "that's what they said"

.

 

[Britva415]

I wish you well in your endeavor to change the English language! No one can question the boldness of your ambition.

It's just chit-chat.

I guess I was hoping that other people would be free to creatively think up neopunct's too, or, talk about ones which in fact have been developed recently to serve unmet needs.

 

[samhasstories]

I think if it's not a direct quote, you just don't need the quotation marks, right? If you want to denote it in some way, italics should suffice.

 

[mrs_mackenzie]

I've always used the single quote as 'not exactly a quote' and the double as "that's what they said"

.

This is generally what I do too. Although now I am questioning whether readers understand it how I intend...

 

[Britva415]

"that's what they said"

 

[SimonDoom]

It's just chit-chat.

I guess I was hoping that other people would be free to creatively think up neopunct's too, or, talk about ones which in fact have been developed recently to serve unmet needs.

On that note, my preference is to keep things simple, to get the job done with the tools at hand. I can't say I can think of any examples where I felt the need to introduce something new-fangled to enhance my meaning.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I think that there are enough deviations from established literary "norms" on Literotica already.

Writers have been able to effectively communicate thought versus dialog for centuries without neopuntuation.

 

[jaF0]

I think if it's not a direct quote, you just don't need the quotation marks, right? If you want to denote it in some way, italics should suffice.

This is generally what I do too. Although now I am questioning whether readers understand it how I intend...

Sometimes I combine, you know 'just for giggles'.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

We can adopt the kagi kakko (hook bracket) and the niju kagi kakko (double hook) from Japanese.

「 the cat said『meow』」said the dog.

Personally I'm a fan of the Em dash as dialogue marker.

— the cat said "meow".— said the dog.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

That's what the 'he was like ...' denotes, that it's not precise directly-quoted speech. Reported speech doesn't need quotes.

I use single quotes for text messages and doubles for speech, no idea if people notice.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

We don't need more symbols. The ones we already have are still a quandary for some people.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It would only work if everyone understood what your special quotes meant, and that's going to take a generation of widespread usage. In the example you gave, they're not needed, because you make the meaning clear with the following sentence. If you left the line exactly as is but replaced the arrows with normal quotation marks, no shade of meaning would be lost.

Somebody get me a damned Captain Pickard GIF!!!

 

[MrPixel]

I wish you well in your endeavor to change the English language! No one can question the boldness of your ambition.

I actually remember when the interrobang was invented. Like @Britva415 said, very useful in writing dialog. I just wish more fonts had it.

 

[Britva415]

That's what the 'he was like ...' denotes, that it's not precise directly-quoted speech. Reported speech doesn't need quotes.

Except that "he was like..." often precedes a direct quote. You can't tell just from the "like" because too often "he was like" doesn't mean "he said something like," it just means "he said."

I mean, I only spent like 15 seconds on the example. I could have done better.

 

[jaF0]

He was like a dingleberry that made no sense when he said things.

 

[Britva415]

He was like a dingleberry that made no sense when he said...

...when he said «durrr, bluhhhrrr, guhhh buhhh» or some shit.

 

[KeithD]

I've always used the single quote as 'not exactly a quote' and the double as "that's what they said"

.

And I doubt any reader understood what you were doing.

 

[12oclocktales]

How about a quote within a quote within a quote: George said, “I heard Tom shout, ‘Mary said, “Alice, find Alice, she did it!”’ before he fell off the balcony.” Standard quotation marks to single and back to standard. This back-and-forth can go on indefinitely, though beyond three gets too confusing to ever use. That’s what I was taught, anyway. My point is that if standard English punctuation can figure how to handle that, who needs anything new?

 

[MrPixel]

How about a quote within a quote within a quote:

I didn't realize that was a standard rule since I had no reason to write dialog until recently, but it's easy enough to understand. My Manual of Style is lost in a box somewhere in the garage. Probably should make an effort to find it.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I actually remember when the interrobang was invented. Like @Britva415 said, very useful in writing dialog. I just wish more fonts had it.

Today I learned; a question mark is also called an interrogation point.

 

[ElectricBlue]

On that note, my preference is to keep things simple, to get the job done with the tools at hand. I can't say I can think of any examples where I felt the need to introduce something new-fangled to enhance my meaning.

No new fangled short cut for "Your Mom"???