On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:10:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

If I could use a blue pencil on the screen when I read the online version of
_The New York Times_, you couldn't read through it. g

Ed,
You should see the Muskegon Comical.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:45:45 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Oh, there's no doubt about that. That's what the Web is so good at:
publishing mistakes, intentional or otherwise, and then multiplying them ad
nauseum.

In this case it's not a mistake. It's a fairly widely used convention.
The fact that it doesn't appear in the style books is certainly
probative, but under the circumstances not determinative.

A quick Google Net search turns up about 8,780,000 hits for "idiot".
A quick Google groups search gets about 2,530,000 hits for "idiot".

Which is correct?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:01:47 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Some of them _are_ funny. But I've seen the list dozens of times and
none of examples I've seen have as many nonsense rules on it.
Considering the abysmal level of knowledge of grammar and style in this
country I'm afraid someone is likely to take this stuff seriously. The
OP obviously did (although his intent was humorous).

Wingers, I expect GG.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:02:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What you're trying to do is to change the signification of a punctuation
mark. Good luck. Vulgar usage may make it stick, but it's not likely.

But think of all the costly ink it would save the publishers of
things like the National Tattler !!

Ummmm ... Rick, who did you say that you wrote for?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

You can't use question marks when you mean exclamation points. Likewise, in
a smaller way, you can't use one type of quotation mark when you mean
another.

Quite true. However you can use a widely accepted convention for the use
of a quotation mark.

And you can get an F on a term paper .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted.

Wrong. I'm using a mark in a convention which does _not_ signify
something is being quoted. That's the point.

So in Ed's example:
[
"We aren't coming today," said John. "Mary said, 'I can't go today
because I have too much homework.'"
]
it's quite clear that John is not quoting Mary, right?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted.

Wrong. I'm using a mark in a convention which does _not_ signify
something is being quoted. That's the point.

CLUE: When someone or something IS being actually quoted
the source is also provided in most cases.
That's part of what quoting is about.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Except, of course, there is an alternate convention which is quite
clearly distinct from the 'single quote inside double quotes' convention.

If you make up a signification, you are causing confusion.

If you'd bother to look you'll see I did not make it up. The fact that
it is not in the major stylebooks does not mean it is not in wide use.
In fact I support the single-quote convention because it _decreases_
confusion.

Look at the sentence above with the single quotes. If I had used double
quotes the reader would be entitled to ask who I was quoting.

How? If you did not say when you did it (IF that's what you did ..
and you DID NOT) you would be a very poor writer, would you not?

Or worse yet, to assume that I was repeating something someone else had said --

Which seems to be *exactly* what you are doing with your odd sources
& arguments based on "he did it first" and "I csan find bad examples."

BTW, Who did I just quote? LOL ... I'd wager that you were not
all that confused.
--
Cliff

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.


Err....

Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation'......

Sam said, "Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation.'"

That's right. d8-)


Ed said, "Sam said", "Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to
say
'air-punctuation.'"

Close. It should be:

Ed said, "Sam said, 'Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
"air-punctuation."'"

You don't want to know the rule for this, but I'll tell you anyway. Nested
quotes alternate between single and double quotes in American usage. Using
multiple nestings, however, is considered bad writing in all but the
strangest cases of dialogue or direct quotation. I have never seen one
nested twice, as in my example above, that I can recall. But that's what the
rule says to do.

FWIW, that sentence is better punctuated:

Ed said, "Sam said, 'Correction: 'pretty sure you had actually meant to say
"air-punctuation."'"

The mark before "pretty" is an apostrophe, not a single quote. It's there to
indicate a missing word or words ("I'm").

This is what people like me get paid to do. g

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

The mark before "pretty" is an apostrophe, not a single quote. It's there to
indicate a missing word or words ("I'm").

I thought most of the time this was done with [].

My pet peeve is that most folks don't understand that the
puncutation goes *inside* the quote marks.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip----
This is what people like me get paid to do. g

--
Ed Huntress

It must be quite amusing for you to read posts from folks like me! I'm so
lost in all the things you've been talking about that I'll likely never get
any of it straight. :-)

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip----
This is what people like me get paid to do. g

--
Ed Huntress

It must be quite amusing for you to read posts from folks like me! I'm so
lost in all the things you've been talking about that I'll likely never
get
any of it straight. :-)

Like I said, Harold, we aren't writing for publication here, and I
ordinarily would have let Rick's license-taking with the quotation marks
just slide right by. I'm not here to copy-edit other peoples' posts. I don't
pay more than passing attention to it. I just bring these things up when
there's a reason to, or when somebody questions it.

Most of the people here are surprisingly good writers in their own way, IMO.
Very few people have trouble saying what they mean, nor being understood.
It's best to treat this kind of communication as something like
over-the-back-fence speech. You're consistently clear and understandable,
even with complex subjects. That's all that matters here.

There are some good reasons to be fussy with writing rules, but none of
those reasons appear in a NG. Today I was working on healthcare copy --
pharmaceutical and medical-device brochures. There, being ambiguous could,
in theory, cost someone his life. So they pour on the copy editing and
proofreading, and they accept only experts to do the job. The people I work
with now are some of the best I've ever seen. Even the proofreaders
typically have advanced degrees in English or in medical writing. Sheesh.

'Can't write their way out of a bag of newsprint, but they sure can edit.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

The mark before "pretty" is an apostrophe, not a single quote. It's there
to
indicate a missing word or words ("I'm").

I thought most of the time this was done with [].

Nope. That's for a different purpose. The apostrophe is used here to
indicate a word or words (or letters) that properly belong there, but which
are often left unsaid in colloquial speech.

The square brackets generally have the missing word(s) written between them.
In a sense, it's opposite to the use of the apostrophe. The word(s) within
the brackets make explicit what is missing.


My pet peeve is that most folks don't understand that the
puncutation goes *inside* the quote marks.

Periods and commas always go inside the *right* quotation mark in American
English. Colons, semicolons, and other punctuation may not. It depends on
the circumstances. You can read them in a grammar book or a style manual.

That's a really arbitrary rule to begin with, one that looks wrong to most
writers, but we do it anyway. It's a convention started by typesetters.
Because almost all punctuation in English is derived from typesetters'
conventions, we've stuck with it, for consistency, so we all understand what
is meant. But some of it is downright ugly.

British writing is somewhat less afflicted with these messy punctuation
conventions.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip---

Most of the people here are surprisingly good writers in their own way,
IMO.
Very few people have trouble saying what they mean, nor being understood.
It's best to treat this kind of communication as something like
over-the-back-fence speech. You're consistently clear and understandable,
even with complex subjects. That's all that matters here.

Thanks, Ed. Very kind of you. Now if I only understood what I was saying!
:-)

Harold

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:06:07 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Now, and more to the point. Are you seriously prepared to defend every
rule on that list?

Which specific one do you object to?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Double quotes indicate a direct quotation (and presumably that the
writer has accepted the material at fact value)

Even if no "purported source" is given?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Single quotes may or may
not enclose a directly quoted word or phrase and but they indicate
irony, disagreement or that the meta-meaning of the word or phrase is
what is being discussed.

I always thought that they "indicated" a busted 'typewriter'.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

That's a new one on me.

It shouldn't be. It's extremely common.

Don't they come in pairs?
We all lost one it seems.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Look, if you want to disagree with me, fine. If you want to defend the
twit that posted the original message, also fine. But do us both a favor
and address the real issue.


:''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Okay, first I owe you (and Cliff) an apology.

No problem.

Since I long ago kill-filed Cliff as a useless twit,

I think I've found another winger or fundie G.
Note how they made assumptions & claims ......
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

And yet as the sources I cited indicate single quotes are commonly used
in that fashion. I could have multiplied examples.

Examples of errors do not make a right, no matter how many.

BTW, Are not sometimes single quotes *nested* inside double quotes?

Jane said "I heard Tom say 'off with his head'". But I could well be
wrong on that one G.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

My personal criterion is simple. If the usage contributes to clarity,
then use it. If not, it is at best suspect. The use of single quotes in
this fashion pretty obviously improves clarity.

Rick,
That's a bit unclear.
Can you rephrase it?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

So, I'm really curious about where you came up with this "meta meaning"
stuff. That's a term from linguistics. Maybe it's in the Style Manual for
Linguists. 'Don't know. I've never heard of it if they publish one. g

It's more commonly referred to as the "use-mention distinction". (See:
http://www.unconventional-wisdom.com/WAW/ROBERT.html) It apparently
originated in philosophy, but it occurs in linguistics and many other
fields. It is also common in ordinary writing.

Should we ask about Wittgenstein & the "meaning of meaning"?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:41:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I'm seriously prepared for a good laugh. I think it was meant to be funny.

Ed,
Have I found a good chum?
I used to think that "??" was a fine job but it now appears that
a simple "'" can work wonders.
OTOH Gunner cannot use them.

Also a bit odd: that's his only gripe GG.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:


And I repeat the key question: Does it in any way detract from clarity?

What?
Could one as easily say %And I repeat the key question: Does it in
any way detract from clarity?%?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:06:07 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific
purpose.

But you are misusing the apostrophe it seems G.


http://www.google.com/search?num=100...%22+apostrophe

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:10:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

If I could use a blue pencil on the screen when I read the online version of
_The New York Times_, you couldn't read through it. g

Ed,
You should see the Muskegon Comical.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:45:45 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Jeez, I'm not in the business of defending Cliff. I *am* in the business of
reacting to gratuitous remarks. g I'm not trying to make you look bad, I
just stuck you with a little "gottcha." We do it to each other all the time
here. If you look back at the original remark I made, you probably will have
to admit that it, too, was worth a chuckle. I mean, you stuck your neck 'way
out there with the "professional writer" line. d8-)

You'll notice it's not one I use very often. However given my mistake
about the intent of the post I felt I should add some weight to my
criticism. It was that or quote some of the stupider 'rules' from that list.

Let me guess. You are a professional writer?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:45:45 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Oh, there's no doubt about that. That's what the Web is so good at:
publishing mistakes, intentional or otherwise, and then multiplying them ad
nauseum.

In this case it's not a mistake. It's a fairly widely used convention.
The fact that it doesn't appear in the style books is certainly
probative, but under the circumstances not determinative.

A quick Google Net search turns up about 8,780,000 hits for "idiot".
A quick Google groups search gets about 2,530,000 hits for "idiot".

Which is correct?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:01:47 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Some of them _are_ funny. But I've seen the list dozens of times and
none of examples I've seen have as many nonsense rules on it.
Considering the abysmal level of knowledge of grammar and style in this
country I'm afraid someone is likely to take this stuff seriously. The
OP obviously did (although his intent was humorous).

Wingers, I expect GG.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:02:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What you're trying to do is to change the signification of a punctuation
mark. Good luck. Vulgar usage may make it stick, but it's not likely.

But think of all the costly ink it would save the publishers of
things like the National Tattler !!

Ummmm ... Rick, who did you say that you wrote for?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

You can't use question marks when you mean exclamation points. Likewise, in
a smaller way, you can't use one type of quotation mark when you mean
another.

Quite true. However you can use a widely accepted convention for the use
of a quotation mark.

And you can get an F on a term paper .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted.

Wrong. I'm using a mark in a convention which does _not_ signify
something is being quoted. That's the point.

So in Ed's example:
[
"We aren't coming today," said John. "Mary said, 'I can't go today
because I have too much homework.'"
]
it's quite clear that John is not quoting Mary, right?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted.

Wrong. I'm using a mark in a convention which does _not_ signify
something is being quoted. That's the point.

CLUE: When someone or something IS being actually quoted
the source is also provided in most cases.
That's part of what quoting is about.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Except, of course, there is an alternate convention which is quite
clearly distinct from the 'single quote inside double quotes' convention.

If you make up a signification, you are causing confusion.

If you'd bother to look you'll see I did not make it up. The fact that
it is not in the major stylebooks does not mean it is not in wide use.
In fact I support the single-quote convention because it _decreases_
confusion.

Look at the sentence above with the single quotes. If I had used double
quotes the reader would be entitled to ask who I was quoting.

How? If you did not say when you did it (IF that's what you did ..
and you DID NOT) you would be a very poor writer, would you not?

Or worse yet, to assume that I was repeating something someone else had said --

Which seems to be *exactly* what you are doing with your odd sources
& arguments based on "he did it first" and "I csan find bad examples."

BTW, Who did I just quote? LOL ... I'd wager that you were not
all that confused.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:53:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Rick Cook wrote:


Now, let me ask you a substantive question. What is the objection to the
use of single quotes for these purposes? To me it clarifies meaning and
that is the main (only?) purpose for rules of usage.


Isn't it a bit like that thing dumb people do with the two
fingers on each hand that they waggle as if it means
something when they talk?

If you're quoting someone who is quoting something else, you need three
fingers on each hand. Then, if you're British, you separate the outside two
fingers more than then inside two. If you're American, you have to separate
the inside two fingers more.

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.

I suspect that someone only used one finger G.
--
Cliff

Cliff piddled around and finally wrote:

If I cry and stomp my feet once more, my mommy said she'd shoot me.

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip---

Most of the people here are surprisingly good writers in their own way,
IMO.
Very few people have trouble saying what they mean, nor being
understood.
It's best to treat this kind of communication as something like
over-the-back-fence speech. You're consistently clear and
understandable,
even with complex subjects. That's all that matters here.

Thanks, Ed. Very kind of you. Now if I only understood what I was saying!
:-)

Harold

Oh, baloney. I can tell when you know exactly what you're talking about. You
write lengthy pieces, and you have a serious look on your face. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

[ ... ]

My pet peeve is that most folks don't understand that the
puncutation goes *inside* the quote marks.

Periods and commas always go inside the *right* quotation mark in American
English. Colons, semicolons, and other punctuation may not. It depends on
the circumstances. You can read them in a grammar book or a style manual.

That's a really arbitrary rule to begin with, one that looks wrong to most
writers, but we do it anyway. It's a convention started by typesetters.
Because almost all punctuation in English is derived from typesetters'
conventions, we've stuck with it, for consistency, so we all understand what
is meant. But some of it is downright ugly.

But, in particular, I find that there are cases where the rules
*must* be violated for clarity. An example is in a string which must be
placed somewhere to make a computer behave properly. In that case, if
the punctuation *must* be there for the computer to be happy, then I
would put them inside the quotation marks. However, if the punctuation
does *not* work with the computer, I would put them outside.

As in: The /etc/hosts file must have an entry consisting of
"127.0.0.1 localhost".

There -- a '.' inside the quotes can cause things to malfunction.

So -- what I typically do is something more like this:

The /etc/hosts file must have an entry consisting of

127.0.0.1 localhost

British writing is somewhat less afflicted with these messy punctuation
conventions.

They've had longer to live with the language, and perhaps were
able to physically impose their preferences on the typesetters. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

Because almost all punctuation in English is derived from typesetters'
conventions, we've stuck with it, for consistency, so we all understand
what
is meant. But some of it is downright ugly.

But, in particular, I find that there are cases where the rules
*must* be violated for clarity. An example is in a string which must be
placed somewhere to make a computer behave properly. In that case, if
the punctuation *must* be there for the computer to be happy, then I
would put them inside the quotation marks. However, if the punctuation
does *not* work with the computer, I would put them outside.

As in: The /etc/hosts file must have an entry consisting of
"127.0.0.1 localhost".

There -- a '.' inside the quotes can cause things to malfunction.

So -- what I typically do is something more like this:

The /etc/hosts file must have an entry consisting of

127.0.0.1 localhost

The reasons for punctuating computer code are based on the way the computer
has been programmed. Rather than having to rely on rules of signage created
by 200 years worth of typesetters setting type for books, you have to rely
on rules of electronic recognition created by 50 years of geeks running on
Jolt Cola and stale pizza.

British writing is somewhat less afflicted with these messy punctuation
conventions.

They've had longer to live with the language, and perhaps were
able to physically impose their preferences on the typesetters. :-)

I don't know. Maybe their typesetters were more laid-back.

--
Ed Huntress