Author Topic: Punctuation and Quotation Marks (Read 2882 times)

Noemon · « **on:** May 29, 2007, 03:51:36 PM »

Just a second ago on sake I wrote the following:

Quote

When I read today's strip my first thought was "Becky's going to be happy!"

I've never really been sure how to punctuate something like that.

...going to be happy!"
...going to be happy!".
...going to be happy"!

all three seem wrong. The last one is technically correct, but isn't what I'm trying to convey; the exclamation mark is part of the thought that I'm quoting, rather than something native to the sentence itself. Should it just be left out? That seems like the most elegant solution, but the meaning conveyed by the exclamation mark is lost.

Porter · « **Reply #1 on:** May 29, 2007, 03:55:40 PM »

Actually, I think that the third one is always incorrect, and the first one is always correct, regardless of whether the punctuation is part of what is being quoted or not.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #2 on:** May 29, 2007, 04:26:58 PM »

The first option is correct by the book. I have decided that this grammatical rule is wrong and illogical, and I make it my practice to put the punctualtion outside of the quotes, if logic dictates that this is where it belongs. So, I'd go with option 3, in a practice of civil disobedience.

Jonathon · « **Reply #3 on:** May 29, 2007, 04:48:04 PM »

*buzz*

You're all wrong!

Either the first or the third can be correct depending on what you mean. Is the quote exclamatory, or is your statement exclamatory? If the former, then go with the first option. If the latter, then the third. The second is never correct—double terminal punctuation is not allowed, with the one occasional exception of an exclamation mark and question mark together.

According to American style, the only punctuation marks that always go inside quotation marks, regardless of whether it's part of the quoted material, are commas and periods.

rivka · « **Reply #4 on:** May 29, 2007, 06:51:40 PM »

Aw, I knew that!

Stupid work, keeping me from seeing this thread earlier in the day!

*checks time stamps*

I take that back. I wasn't at work; I was picking up kids from school. Clearly, Noem's timing stinks.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2007, 06:25:57 AM »

Sorry you missed a chance to be annoyingly pedantic, or whatever. I'm sure you'll have another opportunity.

I just crack myself the heck up!

pooka · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2007, 07:41:48 AM »

I do what my boss tells me to.

I made it into a manual, and here's what I wrote:

"Punctuation goes before close quotes and superscripted ordinal particles (1,st 2,nd 3,rd 4.th)

It's a lot less horrifying in Word. I'm not really sure what he would do if there were a superscripted ordinal particle at the end of a quotation in real life. I think he usually puts punctuation outside of parentheses.

He speaks often of being a night editor at the college paper, so it's not like he's completely making things up.

rivka · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2007, 07:51:13 AM »

Quote

I just crack myself the heck up!

Me, not so much.

Jonathon · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2007, 08:08:59 AM »

You put punctuation before superscripted ordinal particles?!

*dies*

rivka · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2007, 08:14:55 AM »

Is that something English has?

Jonathon · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2007, 08:27:09 AM »

It's not a grammatical feature or anything like that. You know how when you type "2nd" in Word, it automatically superscripts the "nd"? That's the kind of thing we're talking about. Pooka gave some examples, though obviously not as a superscript because the UBB codes here don't support it.

Primal Curve · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2007, 08:59:35 AM »

Quote

You put punctuation before superscripted ordinal particles?!

*dies*

Better re-route the plasma conduits!

Jonathon · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2007, 09:11:44 AM »

Divert all power to the main reactor! Invert the warp field polarity!

Primal Curve · « **Reply #13 on:** May 30, 2007, 09:26:22 AM »

Piggy-back a tachyon pulse on the main deflector dish! Talk a lot about how it's not designed to do that!

pooka · « **Reply #14 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:30:24 AM »

And even if it works, we'd be totally violating the Prime Directive.

Also, I applaud Jon Boy's courageous use of double punctuation there. Very bold. And now I'm typing in incomplete sentences.

Jonathon · « **Reply #15 on:** May 30, 2007, 11:33:38 AM »

*prints pooka an honorary degree from BYU*

Primal Curve · « **Reply #16 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:25:33 PM »

*misspells BYU... the acronym*

rivka · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2007, 06:02:56 PM »

Quote

It's not a grammatical feature or anything like that. You know how when you type "2nd" in Word, it automatically superscripts the "nd"? That's the kind of thing we're talking about. Pooka gave some examples, though obviously not as a superscript because the UBB codes here don't support it.

Oh, those were examples?!

When I googled "ordinal particles," it wanted to tell me about languages that incorporate numbers as part of a longer word. Hence my confusion.

Jonathon · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2007, 07:23:50 PM »

I don't know if "particle" is the appropriate word, but I realized that those were examples and understood what she meant.

pooka · « **Reply #19 on:** June 01, 2007, 10:38:56 AM »

I just had to add:

Quote

(“FMLA”).

We'll see if he changes it in review.

I struggled with what to call th, nd, th. I picked particle as something that is used in other languages like Chinese and Hebrew that have morphologic significance but defy categorization.

Oh, I wrote something hilarious last night. At least, I thought it was hilarious at the time. It was pretty late at night. But it reminded me of "Eject the warp core!"