"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

American standard style, according to all major stylebooks, requires
that the final quotation mark be placed *outside* of periods and
commas. Thus, the period should be after the word "proofreader."

I had the impression that that was true only when actually quoting
someone. I also forgot the comma.

If we're talking about the same comma, it wasn't necessary. But no, American
style requires that you put periods and commas inside of a right quotation
mark. That's NOT true with other punctuation; exclamation points, question
marks, colons and semicolons.

It's wacky, but that's the way it goes.



The same style is largely followed in Canada. British style is
complex, based upon the American style for some journalism (but not
_The Economist_) and fiction, but the so-called "logical" style for
formal works. In that, the period goes outside of any complete
quotation, but the strict version reverses the use of single (') and
double (") quotation marks.

Is that the other error?

I'm getting lost in this conversation. d8-) IIRC, I first thought there was
another error, in which you missed placing a comma before a coordinating
conjunction. But then I realized it was a subordinating conjunction, which
doesn't require one.

I forget. If you want me to go back and look it up, I'll do so. Having
raised this silly piece of pedantry I feel responsible, if you care, to get
it right.

In this informal medium, then, the quotation marks would not be reversed
and the double quote is as correct as in U.S. English. I'm assuming that
"logical" and "strict" refer to the same thing.

"Logical" just refers to British style. That's the term you'll sometimes see
in literature related to the subject. "Strict" is a term I'm using to refer
to the British style of using single quotes first, and then double quotes
inside of them. That's the opposite of American style. You'll see this
"strict" style in _The Economist_, for example.

In American style, the only uses of single quotes by themselves are
literary -- primarily in poetry. You'll see these uses explained in the
Modern Language Association (MLA) stylebook, and, IIRC, in the Chicago
stylebook.


I avoid using single quotes because I've run into problems with all the
different ANSI characters that look like single quotes. If you copy text
from anywhere it often has single quotes that are not the same chararacter
you get from the keyboard.

Right. I'm just talking about publishing style. Electronic communication
demands some modifications.



There is no logical reason, for example, not to allow comma splices.
In fact, the latest edition of the most authoritative stylebook in
the US (the Chicago manual of style) has dropped its objection.

That actually seems logical to me. When you have two sentences they
should be punctuated as such. That's what periods and semicolons are for.

Semicolons are a (re)invention of a 17th-century typesetter, who wanted a
pause longer than a comma but shorter than a colon. It had fallen into
disuse until he revived it.

Two independent clauses, or as you say, two sentences, are rarely punctuated
in speech with a pause as long as a semicolon. It sounds a bit melodramatic.
Thus, there are some well-regarded writers who refuse to use it. Kurt
Vonnegut had a lifelong, one-man crusade against them.

You'll see such clauses punctuated with commas from time to time, and the
pause feels right to me. If punctuation is intended to replicate the pauses
and emphases in speech (most linguists agree that it is), the comma is
closer to the way we actually say such sentences.

--
Ed Huntress



--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.