Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Hi Folks. I remember vaguely my English grammar, and I know I've heard Martha comment that punctuation should ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks, but something just feels off and the internet gods have been vague at best.
Here's my question. If I'm writing a sentence that contains the title of a short work, and the title is at the end of the sentence, does the punctuation fall inside the quotation mark? In other words, which of the following is correct?
My favorite piece by Melville is "Bartleby, the Scrivener."
or
My favorite piece by Melville is "Bartleby, the Scrivener".
Thoughts?
Everything within the quotation marks is quoted, so unless you're quotring the punctuation mark, it sshould be outside the quote marks. Simple, logical, and until 1990, only correct in CXommonwealth countries.
Newspaper printers in the established the rule that periods, commas, etcshould be placed inside the quotes, because stereos in newspaper print shops asre hardly roughly, and there was a tendency for the period, etcx., to get damaged. Most job shops are trash printers, so they were all to happy to do the same; hand-set type is relatively expensive to be ordering extra sorts for. Fine printing shops (including hardcover book publishers) went along because the majority rules.
Lead type began to be replaced by cold type in the 1960s, but people didn't bother to change their habits. However, in the 1990s, desktop publishing came in, and all sorts of people who had no "we've always done it this way" were free to asdopt either the US rule or the UK rule, and as the UK rule makes more sense, many have chosen it. There's been a big fusds by some (older) editors, especially at tradition-bound shops, but many older editors are happy to see the move to the UK rule, and it's even more popular among younger editors.
Or maybe it's just my imagination, because I've always preferred the UK rule, ands applied it in the newspapers I edited. It's nice to see vindication where simple l.ack of grammar skills is to blame.
In any case, since the US and UK rules vary, you won't be clobbered for following the wrong tradition as long as you do it consistently. Do you get incensed when you read the words colour and favour?
In any case, this is a fairly poor place to go for rulings on "what is correct". We're generally of the attitude the EWnglish is a democracy, and people asre free to morph it to suit their needs; if they aren't understood, they tend to correct that, either by changing what they say, or by teaching others what they mean. Whether you put punctuation inside or outside the quote marks isn't likely to result in serious miscimmunications.
Welcome to the forum. There are a lot of interesting people here, and we have some interesting conversations, if you're interested in this sort of thing. If you're not, you'll find us boring and leave, and we won't take offense if you do, but we'd be glad if you decided to become a "regular". Some of the folks here are real experts; others, like me, are just "spotters", so whatever level of expertise you bring, draw up a chair, get yourself a pint of cyber-beer, and join it.
Indeed, welcome. This question is more a matter of style than of grammar. As deaconB points out, style guides differ. If you are not bound by an official style guide, then his advice to pick one and follow it is quite sound.
As one good example and summary, see this topic from an APA (American Psychological Association) blog:
Punctuating around quotation marks
Logic is rarely a good guide when it comes to language. Because of the concepts of quoted punctuation and punctuation outside the quotation, one could logically -- but incorrectly -- postulate double punctuation in sentences such as these:
The clown said the acrobat said "No!". (Indicating acrobat was emphatic, but the clown was matter-of-fact) vs. The clown said the acrobat said "No."! (indicating that the acrobat was matter-of-fact, while the clown was emphatic.) Imagine if it were a question (Did the acrobat exclaim "No!"?). Sadly, such a thing doesn't work in English.
Glenn said: Logic is rarely a good guide when it comes to language.
That's sage advice. I usually follow the style of putting punctuation inside the quotation marks. But since most of my writing is technical, I sometimes find myself doing otherwise. Especially when what's quoted contains symbols or numbers, and including the punctuation makes things ambiguous.
Obvious example: Enter the keystrokes "CNTRL+V" or "CNTRL+3".
Likewise if I'm quoting a URL.
But I wonder about a quote that ends in an ellipsis. Would you write: Was it Lincoln's speech that starts with "Four score and twenty years ago ..."?
That would be 5 score. And yes, I would write ellipsis, close quote, question mark. With a stand-alone quotation, as opposed to your example, I would write "Four score and seven ... ." with a period on the end. But because the sentence in which you embed the quotation is a question, and the quotation ends the sentence, I would omit the final period inside the close quotes and employ the question mark outside the close quotes as you did.
And whenever the period could ambiguously serve some function other than punctuation, such as often happens in technical writing, it is quite correct to avoid embedding the period as punctuation within the quote marks under all circumstances.
Q. Although periods go inside quotation marks in text, is it acceptable to put the period outside the quote when the quote is part of a string of computer code? Following the rule for text would distort the string of code, causing confusion. Example: Include the type identifier: type=“text/JavaScript”.
Thank you everyone kindly for the welcome and sage advice. The above information is very helpful. While I always enclose my punctuation within the quotation marks for normal writing and quoting dialogue, it just felt wrong for a title. As you mentioned, the punctuation is not actually part of the title, so my instinct tells me to place it outside, but that's really what I'm going on. Instinct, which I fear is often like the aforementioned logic. In my case, I'm submitting some of my own writing to editors, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking a style inside-the-mark rule. So I think I'll go with:
Thank you for taking a look at my short manuscript titled "Cheese and Crackers".
I imagine breaking with a comma would follow the same guideline, as in:
Thank you for taking a look at my short story "Cheese and Crackers", complete at approximately 2,700 words.
Both of these have the general feeling of the example listed above: Enter the keystrokes “CNTRL+V” or “CNTRL+3".
Thanks again for the help and suggestions!
Stormseye said enclose my punctuation within the quotation marks for normal writing and quoting dialogue, it just felt wrong for a title.
-------------------
The convention is pretty firm for titles too. Typically, bibliography entries run like this:
Charvat, William, "Melville's Income." In American Literature, 15 (1943), pp. 251-61.
And what about book reviews? - this from a current a New Yorker article is also typical:
That appeal depends, as with certain other books of the time—“The Catcher in the Rye,” “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn,” “A Death in the Family”—on the intensity of the evocation of coming of age
I agree that one should follow what is most widely accepted as convention, becaus why risk distracting your readers for no good reason. But I'm afraid your choice above is off.
It might be OK to use https://www.nounplus.net/ when you're writing a memo or a thesis, but if you're texting back and forth with a hot babe, typing a dozen words into a hrammar checker, editing them, then typing them into your cellphone is going to give the impression that you're not giving her the full attention she would like.
And no grammar checker is going to help if you're use of “sanction”, “seed”, “cleave”, “cordial”, “moot”, “nonplussed”, “spry.”, “need”, “must” or “transparent” is giving the word the opposite meaning of what you intended. If a woman tweets that she needss to loose weight fast, I can guess her hair color immediately. She would have been sexier fart - unless, of course, you're into bestiality. To me, intelligence is sexy.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)