"I Prefer Logical Punctuation". "Others Don't."
One of my biggest beefs with English style (and accordingly, those who pick grammar's nits) is the handling of hierarchical punctuation and the inconsistent American English approach to dealing with it. For example:
1. Toney scissor-kicked the mailman with what could only be described as "badger-like fury".
2. But in Toney's defense, the mailman said Toney "wrote like drunk 2-year old."
In traditional American English, example 1, while beautifully illustrative, is incorrect, all because the little "." at the end of the sentence isn't tucked inside the closing quotation mark. I actually learned this rule as a kid, but somewhere along the way, I developed a distaste for putting periods (and commas) inside quotes and brackets, and can no longer bring myself to do so. This is a bit of a problem when I hand in a draft to an overseeing attorney who prefers the old school line of thought, but nothing a little preemptive Ctrl-F'ing can't handle.
Ben Yagoda (one of Slate's finest) pens an article highlighting the turning tides against the traditional American way, and towards what he calls "logical punctuation". He gives two main reasons for this: 1) computer programming (operative punctuation must be place outside grouping/statement punctuation), and 2) the American way doesn't make sense.
Brits (who took Saxon olde English, circumcised it, and gave us the Chancery Standard) put periods outside of quotation marks. What happened with us? Yagoda's research finds that periods inside quotes developed because it is more "aesthetically pleasing". Yuck. I appreciate that beauty trumps practicality when it comes to many things (such as architecture and handbags), but punctuation should not be one of them (similar to mullets and tuxedo t-shirts). In addition, the way different punctuations are handled in American English is inconsistent. ?'s, ;'s, and -'s go outside the quotes. Yagoda also highlights the new composition medium, the internets, for being ripe with examples of periods outside quotes. If there's one thing we all know by now, it is that the internet never lies.
Anyway, I'm fully on board with this. Tradition for the sake of tradition (without logical purpose) drives my batty, and is to blame for everything from Prop 8 to those silly paper facebooks they still make at BLaw. It is only a matter of time until periods outside quotes becomes standard usage, but until then, I will grit my teeth and will plan the future demise of the capitalized "internet".
Also: congrats to you graduating 3Ls! I hope the protesters weren't too meddlesome this morning.
19 Comments:
The really confusing thing is when you want to end a question with a quotation of a statement. For example:
Did George Bush say "Mission accomplished?"
The question mark is obviously not meant to be part of the quote, yet we are supposed to include it within the marks. Or are we? I am never sure.
Nope, question mark goes outside of the quotation marks, furthering the inconsistency.
Now, really confusing would be:
Did Dan ask "Can you spot me $5?"?
She answers the question mark..question. In American English, form follows logic in this matter. I hope it's helpful.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
Toney, although I appreciate your overall point, the Dan example is not illustrative. It is is the same in either style, right?
2:08 - my point is that ?'s and .'s are handled differently in American styles, unless (for instance) the ? is part of the quotation. Thus, switch to periods outside quotes makes usage consistent.
one space after a period, folks. one. space.
most pretentious post ever.
how pretentious can this be? he said he scissor-kicked a mailman with a badger-like fury.
Nice! I'm onboard. But, I have to ask...is the internet really "ripe" with examples, or did you mean "rife"?
P.S. I'm an 0L and the paper facebooks you refer to? I think they are doing it on the interwebs now. They just sent us all a link to the Berkeley Law Class of 2014 e-Facebook.
Toney, you have a gift for long discourses on shit you know absolutely nothing about. It's cute, in a pathetic sort of way.
the Class of 2011 did not sit through three years' worth of construction to just be relegated to a footnote in some lame post about punctuation order. Please make a proper post.
what 3:09 says
1:04 - I think "absolutely nothing" is unfair... "laughably minimal" is probably more accurate.
Don't you talk to me about grammar!
DE seems to agree with you about logical punctuation.
From his latest e-mail:
I can also assure you that if we adopt positive changes to LRAP, I will make sure they are retroactive for the class of 2011—the “Hardhats”.
Can you forward me that email? Or post it in the comments?
It looks like Slate is on board, too.
I think it's arbitrary and prefer simply to follow the Chicago Manual. Not arbitrary, however, is my rule of never using "quote" as a noun, when there is a perfectly acceptable noun that already serves the purpose: quotation. When you quote something you make a quotation, and you put it inside of quotation marks. This rule is especially important in such citation [another pet peeve: please say "citation" and not "cite" when you mean the noun] expressions as "internal quotation marks omitted": it would be confusing at best and misleading at worst to say "internal quote[s] omitted."
And what is a scissor kick? Youtube link, please.
Jesse: is your post "quotable" or "quotationalbe"?
Post a Comment
<< Home