BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Fucking fucking fucking quotation marks fucking AAAARGH

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Ninjas make great pets
19:58 / 14.05.03
thanks u. me no write good.
 
 
grant
20:48 / 14.05.03
Here ya go, kids. Knock yourselves out.

For what it's worth, I was taught in college that America and the UK had different rules for commas & full stops within quotations.


--------
Fowler (1908):
There are single and double quotation marks, and, apart from minor peculiarities, two ways of utilizing the variety. The prevailing one is to use double marks for most purposes, and single ones for quotations within quotations, as:—"Well, so he said to me 'What do you mean by it?' and I said 'I didn't mean anything'". Some of those who follow this system also use the single marks for isolated words, short phrases, and anything that can hardly be called a formal quotation; this avoids giving much emphasis to such expressions, which is an advantage. The more logical method is that adopted, for instance, by the Oxford University Press, of reserving the double marks exclusively for quotations within quotations. Besides the loss of the useful degrees in emphasis (sure, however, to be inconsistently utilized), there is a certain lack of full-dress effect about important quotations when given this way; but that is probably a mere matter of habituation. It should be mentioned that most of the quoted quotations in this section had originally the double marks, but have been altered to suit the more logical method; and the unpleasantness of the needless quotation marks with which we started has so been slightly toned down.



------------

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993):


A key problem with quotation marks is which other marks of punctuation go inside the closing quotation mark(s) and which belong outside. In the United States, most stylebooks and most editors follow these rules: periods and commas belong inside, colons and semicolons outside. Other marks—question mark, dash, and exclamation point, for example—go inside when they belong with the quoted material, outside when they belong to the main sentence. British editorial conventions differ. 3
When quoting a long passage of two or more paragraphs, the usual procedure in written American English is to use no quotation marks and instead to set off the entire passage of quoted matter by indenting it. If you decide to use quotation marks instead, however, the usual procedure is to begin each paragraph of the long quotation with quotation marks but to use a closing quotation mark only at the end of the final sentence in the quoted passage. In any event, use only one of these methods with any given quotation. See also POETRY. 4
British publishers frequently use single quotation marks (opening ‘ and closing ’ ) where Americans use double quotation marks. In American writing, however, single quotation marks are restricted mainly to enclosing a quotation within a quotation: The dealer said, “I’m sorry, I thought you said ‘I pass.’” Note that a period goes inside both final quotation marks when the two quotations end together.



---------------


Note that Fowler admits that his "more logical" way isn't standard usage.
 
 
rakehell
01:23 / 15.05.03
From what I know it's double-single in the US and single-double in the UK, so:

"Did he really say, 'You're in America now'?"
'Did she really say "You're in Wales now"?'

One interesting thing to note is that in the US, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic, so:

US - My favourite comic is "The Invisibles."
UK - My favourite comic is "The Invisibles".

Ganesh When quoting with double quotes it's important to attribute otherwise you run the risk of people mistaking a quote for irony. I know that in philosophy papers (according to the Chigago Manual of Style) key concepts can be off-set with single-quote marks, so you're probably safe with 'political correctness gone maaad'.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
01:55 / 15.05.03
I note that nobody has yet pulled out the ICBM of punctuation: the interrobang!
 
 
sleazenation
07:00 / 15.05.03
Nor has anyone yet invoked that grammatical doomsday device- The Chicago Manual of Style.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
07:05 / 15.05.03
I was tempted to pull the insidious sidila but that's more pirate punctuation than ninja.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:33 / 15.05.03
I'd just like to say that I am really impressed about how much you guys care for correct punctuation (and also grammar, though that is another issue). It speaks of an attention to detail that I doubt I could ever muster as my idea of hell is to be forced to become a proof reader.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
08:41 / 15.05.03
I live your personal hell two days a week.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:53 / 15.05.03
Well, I dabble a little myself. Today, my only task is to proof read a paper. Luckily my co-author, whose first language is not English, recognises that I am nearly useless in that role.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:01 / 15.05.03
I have to proof read legal documents written by people who had scholarships the College of Doctors Handwriting and transcribed by people with no practical understanding of what my department actually does.

I say have, my job ends tomorrow and my productivity rate has hit an all time low. The chance of me doing anything close to work is running screaming for the hills.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
16:54 / 15.05.03
Sub trumps: I'll hit you with Strunk & White, motherfuckers!
 
 
grant
20:07 / 15.05.03
The Strunk & White is also on the other end of that link I posted. Doesn't say anything about quotation marks, that I could find.

Lovely "which/that" though.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:20 / 15.05.03
Oxford thesis guidelines specify single quotation marks for the main quotation, and double quotation marks for quotations within quotations. They also follow the Deva Rules for footnote markers, and give full details of the correct placement of commas in footnote references. I wish I had seen this document before I had written my dissertation, as I am now going to have to go through and replace all the punctuation which is wrong.

Is that the right use of which? 'All the punctuation which is wrong will be replaced, and all the punctuation which is right will be left alone.' I never know...
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:34 / 15.05.03
Dude! All those guidelines. I write a fair bit in my specialised and small way, and I don't think I've ever read a single guideline. Then again, I write for shit.
 
 
grant
18:41 / 19.05.03
That/which is a right bastard, to be British about it.

In common usage, they're interchangeable, but to be proper, "which" refers to a clarification of one item, while "that" sets one item apart from a category. The example I've been taught (and only recently) is:

Fetch me the bicycle, which is broken.

vs.

Fetch me the bicycle that is broken.

The "which" further defines the singular bicycle, while the "that" is of-a-piece with "bicycle," setting it apart from other bicycles.

There's more at Strunk & White, if you follow the Bartleby link at the previous page.

Off the top of my head, I'd say:
I wish I had seen this document before I had written my dissertation, as I am now going to have to go through and replace all the punctuation which is wrong.

..is incorrect, unless you're going to replace ALL the punctuation.

Actually, it'd be much tidier to put it as "replace all the wrong punctuation," so it's crystal clear you're referring to the punctuation as wrong and not the act of replacing it.

But anyway, the punctuation is wrong. It is the "punctuation that is wrong" that will be replaced.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:55 / 19.05.03
You're confusing your use of commas slightly, Grant. "All the punctuation which is wrong" distinguishes the punctuation which is wrong from the punctuation which is not wrong, although you correctly point out that "that" would be more correct. "All the punctuation, which is wrong" would describe all the punctuation, adding a relative clause. "All the punctuation that is wrong" would add the information "is wrong" to the set "all the punctuation", thus effectively limiting the discourse to that punctuation that is wrong.

There was a famous unintended relative clause in a WW2 poster encouraging pilots to eat their greens or get eight hours sleep a night or something similar with the proclamation "Pilots, who are dull-witted, do not live long".

Of course, this fails to take into account that punctuation is not "wrong". The people using it are wrong. The punctuation is merely incorrect.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
19:56 / 19.05.03
Punctuate this, you crazy mofos:

Hattie had had had Harry had had had had had had as Harry had had had been correct.
 
 
Linus Dunce
20:12 / 19.05.03
Wrong punctuation isn't wrong. But the people using it were wrong, surely, unless they're still typing. :-)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:14 / 19.05.03
Well, no. Because a) reading is an iterative process, b) the present tense is located in the moment of writing and c) they are wrong. Morally and genetically.
 
 
grant
20:30 / 19.05.03
Yeah, the comma (I've been told) is sort of married to the "which," although I can't see why it can't shack up with the "that" as well, doing just about the same thing with either.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:37 / 19.05.03
Because the comma with "which" is introducing a relative clause, and the word "that" is not, put simply. It's an adaptation of English to deal with the variance of descriptive and relative additional clausulae, which in Latin tends to be done in the one sense with relative pronouns and in the other with participles. The comparative lack of fashionability of the gerundive and the participial clause in English has resulted in this somewhat unlovely approach.
 
 
Linus Dunce
20:38 / 19.05.03
I disagree -- "Here is the dissertation I wrote, I use the wrong quotation marks." As for their morals and genes, I couldn't say, but they sound like an exchange student to me.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:45 / 19.05.03
You probably want a semicolon instead of the comma there, Ignatius. Try instead "In the dissertation I wrote last Tuesday, I use commas without mercy; I hope that my audience will more thankfully receive this spoken version".
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:58 / 19.05.03
Haus, you are a dreadful old pedant, and I love you.
 
 
Linus Dunce
21:15 / 19.05.03
Prob. do need the semicolon. But I tried "use" and didn't like it. It feels so much more comfortable with a 'd' on the end. It was last Tuesday, after all.

Same for "Haus says" or "Haus argues." No he doesn't, unless he will live forever without changing his mind. He may well do, and I hope he enjoys it but, for me, Haus said, and Haus argued. Anything else is a newspaper headline or an academic affectation designed to make tilting against the contents of dusty, old books somehow contemporary, punchy, sassy and modern.

Of course, he'll be back in the present tense right about ... now.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:26 / 19.05.03
You're discussing style, Ignatius, and are more than welcome to do so. I am merely telling you what is possible and what is wrong. Your tense is possible. Your sentence construction is wrong. It was wrong when you wrote it, it is wrong now and it will be wrong in ten minutes time. There's a distinction here, and I am happy to draw it, but if you're just going to get upset then there's hardly much point.
 
 
Linus Dunce
21:36 / 19.05.03
Well, Haus, I'm sorry if you think I am being snotty. I joined this conversation with a little nudge and a smiley. A bit of ribbing, if you will. I didn't mean for you to take it as a personal insult.

My sentences may be constructed poorly. They may not. Having you tell me they are wrong means diddly-squat to me as I have yet to see The Haus Manual of Style and General All-Round Correctness in the bookshops. If they are in fact wrong though, they will be wrong forever. I however, will not. For example, I got out of the right side of the bed this morning.

Rgds,

Ignatius.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:50 / 19.05.03
Don't tell me. Having gotten out of the right side of the bed, you and your beautiful girlfriend then went to see a real live tiger?
 
 
Linus Dunce
21:53 / 19.05.03
No mate. Brushed my teeth and went to work.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:07 / 19.05.03
As a tiger tamer?

Sorry if I came across as snippy. What you are poised between here is the iterative and the aorist. Either is grammatically valid. On the other hand, when I said "probably" above, I *was* being nice.
 
 
gingerbop
15:43 / 20.05.03
Who knew there could be so much rage towards punctuation?
 
 
grant
16:07 / 20.05.03
Damn those Roman bastards for what they did to my mother tongue.

She's MINE, you hear? MINE!!

Someday, I'm going to kill Latin and marry Anglo-Saxon.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:27 / 20.05.03
I shagged that Byrtnoth, I did. I felt a gleaming upon the water, and pressing upon my linden-wood shield. And then many men came about me.
 
 
Cat Chant
17:15 / 20.05.03
a) reading is an iterative process,

Haus, please explain this. Do you mean reading in general as a technique of the apprehension of an inscription, or 'reading' as a gerund in the sentence you were referring to? Either way, what do you mean by 'iterative'? And does English have an aorist, and what is the difference between it and an iterative - is it what I and my EFL books would call the 'past simple' and the 'past continuous'? Because I was brought up to believe that the aorist was an aspect, not a tense.

(Am interested and dull-witted, not nitpicking, by the way, lest I become the target of your wrath)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:51 / 20.05.03
I'm using the aorist as a shorthand here for "single action in the past", which, as you say, is aspective of the perfect in English (I think - is that how you would put it? Because the perfect is completed action in the past, whereas aorists do not consider duration or completion, yes?). So, in the very specific example that Ignatius attempted to correct, "is wrong" and "were wrong", or later "Haus says" and "Haus said".

Option one of those is using it iteratively - so, Taplin says that the Iliad was read dramatically over three days. Because every time that you open the book in which Taplin says that, he is still saying it. Conversely, "Taplin said that blah blah Iliadcakes, but his beliefs were superceded in 2083 by the Waffelhauser Contention", because at that point Taplin's saying of this is located in the past relative *to* the Waffelhauser Contention. Alternatively, "Taplin said", because he did it in 1984, and the action of Taplin saying has been concluded, if you get my meaning. Either is good (can't believe I'm arguing the case for grammatical flexibility), but in this case reading can rerender the act into the present.

So, say, "Grant is correct in saying that the distinction of 'that' and 'which' is an absolute bastard", because, upon revisiting the act of Grant saying through the process of reading, we find that he *is* right. Alternatively, "Grant was right when he said that....", where Grant's action of saying is placed in a temporally relative position. Because in part reading creates a continuous, breathless present, in what the present act of reading reimbues the scene with immediacy - iterative because the process contained within the text is ongoing when scrutinised. Recorded action as virus, coming into life in contact with a "living organism", in this case the reader. So, a) and b) sort of slide into each other, but the specific case of (a) would be when something written is being discussed as something with a continued process of communication. So, not quite the same as past historic and past continuous, insofar as my imperfect understanding goes, but certainly related.

But anyway, you know more about grammar than I do...

Ignatius' contention was first one of grammar, and when that seemed unprofitable the field was apparently moved to one of taste.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply