SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) →We need better sources for LQ: As much as I dislike the term, it is something that people use. Also, "North America" doesn't mean "the U.S. and Canada." |
||
Line 627: | Line 627: | ||
::I think we should not write anything anywhere that isn't supported by good sources—and I don't mean random websites. Who calls it "logical quotation," for example? <font color="purple">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User talk:SlimVirgin|TALK]]</font> <font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 02:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
::I think we should not write anything anywhere that isn't supported by good sources—and I don't mean random websites. Who calls it "logical quotation," for example? <font color="purple">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User talk:SlimVirgin|TALK]]</font> <font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 02:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::There are a few sources that call it "logical punctuation." While I would personally prefer to downplay this name because it erroneously implies that British practice is better than American, people do use it. [A handbook http://books.google.com/books?id=yaj3PqRx8YgC&pg=PA277&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false] [And a text on early modern English http://books.google.com/books?id=y9ChTlB59BAC&pg=PA58&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false] I'm skeptical about Language Log. It's a blog written by professionals, but there's a lot of ranting. We should probably cite anything we see on LL as the specific professional opinion (these guys are mostly professors with PhDs) of each specific blogger. |
|||
:::Also, we should mention the U.S. and Canada specifically if that's what we mean. North America also includes Mexico and there are people there who speak English. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:20, 15 February 2010
Typography C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
American English versus British English but what about the rest of us?
As far as I know every dialect of English but the American one uses logical style. Am I not right? If this is the case, let's have it made clear in the article. If it's not the case, let's have a more thorough coverage. There is more to English than the sum of British and American English.
Specifically what style do they use in Canadian English? One might assume that they used the logical style just as they use Commonwealth spelling however the U.S. may exert a stronger influence than I might imagine and that there exists two differing punctuation styles might slip the notice of even the proudest calling-a-zed-a-"zed"-and-not-forgetting-the-<u>-in-"colour" Canadian. Jimp 19Dec05
- I find it rather POV to call it "logical style", and at any rate you're mistaken; Canadian English follows the US usage. I had never seen the single quote style until I first read a British-published book (probably a Doctor Who novel knowing me). PurplePlatypus 08:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Canadian English uses American style. There are rare holdouts. – joeclark 14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
HTML/XHTML paragraph needs clarification
It would be rather nice if someone would take a look at the discussion of quotes in HTML/XHTML in the "Emphasis and irony" section and translate it into English. What's there currently probably means something to the editor who wrote it, but it really needs to be "dumbed down" for the masses. --BRossow 14:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Biblical references
"Sometimes, quotations are nested in more levels than inner and outer quotation. Nesting levels up to five can be found in the Bible."
Anyone have a reference for this?
--babbage 07:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The references are hidden in comments in the source of the page should anyone doubt the claim. Including them on the page cuts into the flow of the article. Would it be appropriate as some sort of footer?Davilla 21:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
References: [1] Jeremiah 27:1-11; 29:1-28, 30-32; 34:1-5; Ezekiel 27:1-36
History of the glyphs
When were quotation marks first used? Why are there so many different kinds? How did they evolve? — Omegatron 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's a great question. I'd looked into this a bit but couldn't find much information online, so left it to a more knowledgable contributor. From what I've found, quotation marks used to be written in the margin of a page, kind of like a symbolic designation of blockquotes. Davilla 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
History: reported speech conventions
"When quoted text is interrupted, such as with the phrase 'he said,' a closing quotation mark is used before the interruption, and an opening quotation mark after."
"I know in some of Jane Austen's novels (pub. early Nineteenth Century), pontificated Francis Crot, the interruption is contained within one set of quotation marks. I believe this is also the convention in French." Franciscrot 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Split this page
- There's a lot of information here on the representation of these marks on computer systems. That's excellent, of course, since it couldn't be included in most style manuals. However, in my mind there is still that distinction between the proper use of quotation marks in writing and their graphical representation. I want to split this page into language-related style information, for English particularly, and machine-related typographical information. There is minimal overlap, I think, but I'm soliciting suggestions. Davilla 20:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The distinction is between the basic typographical information--the types of glyphs, applicable languages, their spacing, etc.--and their correct use in text--when and how to quote. The first is a comparison of glyphs across languages, while the second is a style guide. Can anyone suggested a name for the latter, something along the lines of the use of quotation marks, or quotations in text? Davilla 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Quotation marks (usage), perhaps? --InShaneee 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- There's also a related article at Quotation, which seems to be about the literature context. I'm thinking perhaps the "language-related" usage could find a home at Quoting, which currently looks more like a placeholder than the disambiguation page it's trying to be, whereas Quote seems to be genuine. Something to remember in any case is to ensure there are enough cross-references connecting these related if individual articles. --TuukkaH 12:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe leave the usage in quotation mark, and move the info about the glyphs to quotation character, as done with space (punctuation) and space character. --surueña 14:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am quite happy to see the split suggested by Davilla above and I would like to see the English usage and non-English usage in separate articles.Abtract 16:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- since no-one disagreed with my suggestion (one month ago) to split out non-English usage, I have actioned it. I may well have missed some vital elements in either article, so please correct my first attempt at a sensible split
I don't see any reason why these should be split. Space (punctuation) and Space character should probably be merged. — Omegatron 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- As anyone interested will see, the split has been made and we now have two separate articles Quotation mark and Quotation mark, non-English usage. I made this split for several reasons:
- others had suggested splitting the article
- it seems likely to me that the great majority of readers of this (English Wikipedia) article are seeking information on English usage.
- the foreign language usage sections had become quite large in relation to the whole and distracted from the main thrust of the article (incidentally I agree that the same applies to the glyphs but I don't feel inclined to make that split, though I would support someone else doing so).
- the end result (2 articles) makes for easier reference - all the English stuff together or straight off to another article if that's what the reader is seeking.
- For these reasons I do not support merging the articles which I believe would be a retrograde step.Abtract 08:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- "No disagreements in a month" is not the same as a consensus. No one supported your split, either. I would imagine that most (like myself) didn't know of it. Did you have a split template on the page for the month? Did anyone else comment on your proposal after you made it?
- The others didn't ask for non-English languages to be separated from English. They asked for glyph-related information to be split from grammar-related information. — Omegatron 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree they didnt specifically ask for the foreign language parts to be split off but the idea seemed to be that the article was cluttered with stuff that inhibited easy reference to the main part of the article which is the usage of quotation marks in the English language - this is after all the English language Wikipedia. As to the split template I think it has been on the article for some time. Anyway let's see what other opinions emerge. We have a position where there are now 2 articles and several edits following the split. It seems to me that these 2 articles flow well and each has a reason for existence but I presume you will now make a case for merging them? Incidentally, I agree with your point about space but that is quite different as one of the articles has almost nothing in it and I can't see how it could be expanded. If you make a formal proposal there, I will support you Abtract 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the tag proposing a split since I have on acted half of it (splitting out foreign languages) and there has been no discussion on the other half (glyphs) since March.Abtract 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It has been a month since the suggestion to merge was made. In that time, no-one has supported the proposal, indeed no case for it has been made. I am therefore removing the tag today lest it languish there forever :) Abtract 11:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was never any support for the article to be split, either. — Omegatron 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? :) Abtract 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should present a case for merging according to this rather than simply saying you don't agree with the split which took place over a month ago and has raised no objections other than yours. It is difficult to consider your case without knowing what it is. If you don't do this, or even if you do, how do you suggest we proceed? Do you want the tag to remain indefinitely? What do you suggest? Abtract 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made the splitout of glyphs as suggested above. Abtract 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is now 2 months since the proposal to merge was made and no-one has put up a case for merging or supported the proposal, so I am removing the tag. :) Abtract 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- No one supported or made a case for your split proposal, either. — Omegatron 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what I think of the idea in general, but several problems currently present themselves. 1) quotation marks, glyphs is not categorised. 2) That page is also near orphan[3]. 3) The article title doesn't appear to adhere to the Manual of Style. However, probably the biggest issue is that with this split, the lead paragraph of this page now reads like a disambiguation page. A more appropriate way of dealing with it would be to have a short section describing glyphs, and a short section describing non-English useage with a "see main article" link (e.g., ADHD#Controversy). --Limegreen 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems very clear to me as it is but then I wrote it so I may not be the best person to judge; if you wish, show us what you mean, retitle the article, add the paragraphs, do the edit.Abtract 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Computer languages
The page currently lists php as using single/double straight quotes interchangeably, but php interpolates double-quoted strings. [4]
Quotes within Quotes: Discuss
For quotes within quotes, spaces are unnecessary; when you start a single open quote (i.e. ‘) within a double open quote (i.e. “), it is understood that at if the single end quote ends with the sentence, there will be three end quote marks placed after the comma or period (i.e. ,’” or .’”) and before a colon or semicolon (’”: or ’”;). Thus, a space between the ending single and double quotes (i.e. ’ ”) is superfluous, making it look awkward. Besides, where is documentation in proof of this claim? Search Google and you will see examples supporting a no-space rule. Also, you will never see a newspaper or magazine use a space between ending single and double quotation marks. Perhaps in academia, but never otherwise. This looks awkward: (“‘awkward.’ ”) and so does (“ ‘awkward.’ ”); but this looks fine: (“‘fine.’”)
Original research/references
I've tagged this article as original research. Perhaps I've overreacted and should just have tagged it as unreferenced. But it seems to me that all the wonderful, patient discussion on this page fails to cite any proper references, and is hence dubious. mgekelly 12:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you are overreacting. I think the target for this page should be that the reader should be confident in the advice. As a British person with some competence in punctuation, I am troubled by the various statements of British use, which we would not recognise as such. I did some looking around and I can understand the problem, a lot of the information on the web is American and casually states that there are some British English rules, yet these don't seem to conform to what I understand as the rules. Also, I know that there is not a good understanding of what the rules are supposed to be, so it is difficult to distinguish between proper and common usage (I avoid the word correct deliberately). Spenny 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another point I don't see made strongly enough here is that there is rarely a single set of rules governing usage, particularly such fundamental usage as punctuation. Surely the punctuation rules applied to a scholarly journal are not the same as those enforced by a newspaper editor, a mass-market book publisher, a teacher at a public school, etc. Is one set of rules correct, and the others simply debased forms? Is there some Platonic superset of rules that constitutes ideal puncutation? I think not. This kind of objectivist position was strong in the Victorian era but has less credibility today. Punctuation is, like other aspects of language, a living thing representing the consensus of practitioners. Trevor Hanson 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Y?ou sa!id "it!. :P" --Ryan Heuser 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Marking a foreign vocabulary
Is it correct to use German or English quotation marks around 'Auto' when writing "The German word ‘Auto’ means ‘car’."? - 80.141.241.19 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Generally, use the punctuation of the ‘outer’ language so the example above is correct, as is Das englische Wort „car“ bedeutet „Auto“. Zeimusu | Talk page 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
How are punctuations used in quotes that are followed by citations?
This could be included in this article because in scientific writing, this situation is often encountered. For example (observe the full-stops used here), which is the correct way to include the following citation -- "cold-blooded but prefers to eat hot-blooded animals." in the following sentences?:
The iguana is said to be "cold-blooded but prefers to eat hot-blooded animals." (Simon and Garfunkel, 1970).
OR
The iguana is said to be "cold-blooded but prefers to eat hot-blooded animals" (Simon and Garfunkel, 1970).
Note that the full-stop is within the quotes and outside the quotes here. Which is the correct
- As far as I'm aware - either...let me explain - because the "." is in the quotation marks, it is self-contained and doesn't actually end the sentence. If it were to be the end of a sentence, you need to add another fullstop at the end anyway - ie: The iguana is said to be "cold-blooded but prefers to eat hot-blooded animals.". If it's a fullstop at the end of a quotation before the quotation marks end, it doesn't actually end the whole sentence - just the sentence within the quotation marks. Put in the fullstop if there is a fullstop after the word "animals" or don't is there isn't - and put one at the very end of YOUR sentence (after the citation) as well. Although I'm English and use the British rule - I doubt it matters so much that someone of another nationality would think it's completely, utterly wrong. --Andyroo316 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- This last section was copied from Talk:Quotation mark, non-English usage byAbtract 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware - either...let me explain - because the "." is in the quotation marks, it is self-contained and doesn't actually end the sentence. If it were to be the end of a sentence, you need to add another fullstop at the end anyway - ie: The iguana is said to be "cold-blooded but prefers to eat hot-blooded animals.". If it's a fullstop at the end of a quotation before the quotation marks end, it doesn't actually end the whole sentence - just the sentence within the quotation marks. Put in the fullstop if there is a fullstop after the word "animals" or don't is there isn't - and put one at the very end of YOUR sentence (after the citation) as well. Although I'm English and use the British rule - I doubt it matters so much that someone of another nationality would think it's completely, utterly wrong. --Andyroo316 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Emphasis (strongly discouraged and incorrect)
My understanding was that the use of quotes for emphasis is not so much incorrect as archaic. It has just gone out of typographic fashion. I don't remember where I read this though, so I don't have a source to add. At least one of the sources for the emphasis section is not really what I count as cite-able. It's just someone's blog making fun of a sign that uses quotes for emphasis because it's funny if you read it with the sarcastic bent. However, I think taking something in quotes as having sarcastic meaning is a relatively recent usage. Hopefully some typography geek who knows of some authoritative source will comment or update it.
incorrect US and UK punctuation info
The American convention is for sentence punctuation to be included inside the quotation marks, even if the punctuation is not part of the quoted sentence, while the British style shows clearly whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted phrase:
Did someone shout “Shut up”? (British)
Did someone shout “Shut up?” (American)
This and the examples are patent nonsense. More specifically, the second example is incorrect unless "shut up" was shouted as a question. The mentioned US difference only applies to commas and periods. In both UK and US spelling, both examples can be used, but they have different meanings and are not equivalent, but it is of course rare for someone to shout "shut up" as a question. So the normal punctuation in both systems would be Did someone shout "shut up"? (or Did someone shout "shut up!"?).
The Chicago Manual of Style reads in section 5.13: "The British style of positioning periods and commas in relation to the closing quotation mark is based on the same logic that in the American system governs the placement of question marks and exclamation points: if they belong to the quoted material, they are placed within the closing quotation mark; if they belong to the including sentence as a whole, they are placed after the quotation mark."
see also http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/quotation_marks.html
http://www2.ncsu.edu:8010/ncsu/grammar/Quotes3.html
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
In addition British style shows clearly whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted phrase is not true at all times; UK style also illogically uses a comma inside quoted direct speech that precedes other material in the same sentence. This means that direct speech retains punctuation inside the quotation marks in BrE also, with a full stop changing into a comma if followed by explanatory text. American_and_British_English_differences http://www.bbc.co.uk/branding/pdf/writing_style_guidelines_jan06.pdf
This was already pointed out before on this talk page, but it seems the corresponding part was removed from the article: I have corrected a very common misconception, which is that in Britain logical punctuation is used for quoted speech. It is not: Britain (and Australia and all others that follow British style) put the comma illogically within the quotation, same as American. Thus: 'Good morning, Dave,' said HAL. --Espoo 09:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard about this. I'm English, and at my school during KS3 English (4 years ago) we were always taught to put the punctuation inside the "speech marks." 82.33.114.9 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
single quotes vs. double - the style I use
I use single quotes when a concept is being referred to:
The ‘experience lens’, draws on the strategic experience of the organisation
But double quotes when speech is used:
Bob commented that "they use the Experience Lens too much"
I see this style increasingly.
I wasn't clear what the article's position on single vs. double is
80.229.242.179 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
single quotes vs. double - example
Just an example of this style:
years of continuous success leads many managers to ignore external crises because they perceive them to be 'temporary' or 'inconsequential'
So it's immediately clear that we are dealing with concepts, with abstractions, and not with somebody's words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.242.179 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Curly quotes on Mac OS
Can someone tell me how you can easily produce them on WP on a Mac? (That is, just with a single keystroke?) Tony 07:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Glyph Description Keys “ (left double quote, high-66) Option + [ ” (right double quote, high-99) Option + { = Option + Shift + [ ‘ (left single quote, high-6) Option + ] ’ (right single quote, high-9, apostrophe) Option + } = Option + Shift + ]
- This should work with all UK and US, QWERTY and DVORAK layouts, although the physical key positions may vary amongst them. The Option key is also known as the Alt key. Christoph Päper 10:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks SO much, Christoph! It works! Tony 10:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it does work, but then why are the double and single quotes switched around on the article's actual chart?
How to type quotation marks (and apostrophes) on a computer keyboard Macintosh key combinations Windows key combinations Linux (X) keys HTML decimal Single opening ‘ Option + [ Alt + 0145 (on number pad) Compose < ' or Alt Gr + Shift + V ‘
Single closing (& apostrophe) ’ Option + Shift + [ Alt + 0146 (on number pad) Compose > ' or Alt Gr + Shift + B ’
Double opening “ Option + ] Alt + 0147 (on number pad) Compose < " or Alt Gr + V “
Double closing ” Option + Shift + ] Alt + 0148 (on number pad) Compose > " or Alt Gr + B ”
- This chart gives the single quotation marks as Option + [ and Option + Shift + [, and vice versa for the double quotations, which is wrong, as our keyboards have demonstrated. It's the other way around, as Christoph's chart shows. So I'm changing it. NoriMori (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Query with a query
Did he say, “Good morning, Dave”? No, he said, “Where are you, Dave?”
Happy with those. How about:
Are you sure he said, "Where are you, Dave?"
? (not even sure if I should have 3 in this paragraph!).
Spenny 09:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the real rule is, a question mark or exclamation takes priority over a full stop, so the full stop would be the one omitted. Then if both are the same character, it goes on the inside. If one is a question mark, and the other is an exclamation mark, keep both. He actually said "Really?"! Generally, omitting a full stop loses no meaning in the sentence. In that sentence one would surely not omit the question mark, since that would loose meaning, as other wise one would not know if "Really.", "Really?", or "Really!" was intended. (Actually the exclamation point outside the quote would rule out the last one.) One would not remove the exclamation point at the end either, for one would loose meaning there too. Ideally one would never omit the punctuation at all (that would be the simplest rule), but Are you sure he said, "Where are you, Dave?"? looks a bit odd. HTH. 71.2.110.131 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
According to my dictionary (Canadian Oxford), "quote" is an informal noun, usually plural when referring to quotation marks (this is the third sense of three for the word).
At best the noun "quote" should be used carefully to avoid confusion, but perhaps in an encyclopedic article it should not be used at all. (The verb "to quote" is okay, however.)
Examples:
- Quotation mark is the symbol
- Quotation is the text quoted, never the mark
- To quote is to repeat verbatim, or perhaps to put into quotation marks
But:
- In quotes clearly refers to quotation marks, but the informal use should be discouraged
- Quotes in other contexts can be completely unclear, and is to be avoided ("omitting quotes is generally not recommended"—what does that mean?)
- A quote is usually a quotation, not a quotation mark, but better to write unambiguously: "a quotation"
- Quote mark is not in the dictionary, and should be avoided
- Speech mark—is this a word at all?
—Michael Z. 2007-08-27 13:56 Z
Speech marks
"Speech marks"? Is this verifiable in any dictionary or encyclopedia? Sounds like a mistake to me. —Michael Z. 2007-08-27 14:02 Z
In the UK, speech marks is common usage. Check a Google search and you will see a number of primary school resources using the phrase. I think it is likely that small children can cope with the concept of marking speech, whereas quotations is a more complicated idea. The formal British English name is Inverted Comma. Spenny 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Should this article be amended to note the difference in terminology between British and American English i.e British use 'inverted commas'/'double inverted commas' and Americans use 'quotes'/'double quotes'?Gwolfe28 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Important advice forwarded from Jeffery O. Gustafson
LOOK:
IT IS
." or !" or ?" or ,"
NOT
". or "! or "? or ",
So then, how do we make it appear as urgently on this article while keeping it looking encyclopedic? --129.130.38.119 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this counts as talk-page vandalism, and think it should be removed, or the font size changed to something more sensible. It's also largely a matter of style. I stick punctuation where it semantically makes sense, except in formal writing where people might look at me funny, hence "Feel Good Inc.". ⇌Elektron 14:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Straight v Curved
I remember I was reading this page last year and it mentioned proper/accepted usage for straight and curved quotes. This article doesn't even differentiate between them. Am I mistaken? — mattrobs 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you publish a book with straight quotes in place of curly quotes, everyone will look at you funny. Straight quotes exist largely because they had to compromise a lot when they made ASCII. They tend to be easier to type, and show up "correctly" on most systems (but then, the use of random Unicode characters is so widespread that it doesn't really matter). They're never correct, but sometimes you have to use them (e.g. coding) or might as well, in case it doesn't show up correctly (IRC), or can't be bothered to type the correct character. You can also use straight single quotes to differentiate apostrophes from closing single quotes, but that's another story. ⇌Elektron 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why isn't this mentioned in the article? — mattrobs 04:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This stuff has been recently split off into a separate article, Quotation mark glyphs. The straight ("neutral") quotation marks predate ASCII by perhaps a hundred years: they were invented for the typewriter. —Michael Z. 2007-09-18 07:45 Z
The dividing comma
Has anyone got a good source for the issue of the comma used to divide the quotation from the surrounding sentence where there is no natural punctuation in the quotation? I guess proper style would be to place the surrounding text appropriately.
e.g.
(1) "He was running," he said, "through the park."
or
(2) "He was running" he said, "through the park."
or
(3) "He was running" he said "through the park."
Most people would use (1) but I believe that (2) is held to be grammatically correct. Most style guides apparently recommend (1). Has anyone got a good (set of) source(s) on this? The one I found was Australian and I simply do not know if Australian, British and US English diverge on this issue.
Another variation to consider is
(5) He said, "I am running through the park." vs. (6) He said "I am running through the park." Spenny 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd recommend against putting a "he said" where there is not meant to be a pause in the speech - it makes it harder to read. In most literature, I always see (1). Traditionally, punctuation is always moved inside the quote whether it semantically belongs there or not, so (1) would still be "correct". (5/6) is something I avoid. There's also the "he said" vs "said he", and "A said" vs "said A". ⇌Elektron 13:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- How should these be punctuated if it's a seperate sentence followed by another? Such as, say...
- "You're not supposed to be here," he said. "Why are you here?"
- Now, how should that be punctuated? If it's two distinct sentences (identical to, say, "You're not supposed to be here. Why are you here?" he said.) should there be a comma after 'here' or a period after 'here'? Should 'he' be capitalized if the first quote is comma'd off, or perioded off, or not at all? Should there be a period or a comma after said, does it matter if the entire quotation is two sentences broken in the middle or one sentence broken in half (like "You're not supposed to be here, why are you here?" he said.) Should 'Why' be capitalized? If there are additional sentences after the speaker attribution, does that change anything? (as if, "You're not supposed to be here," he said. "This area is strictly off-limits. Who are you? Why are you here? What are you doing with that beaker?" or some such) The article isn't really clear when you should use commas in a quote, or how the letters should be capitalized (again, divided into 'American' and 'British' usage if need be) whereas right now there's nothing to suggest that there would be any other way to put it. PolarisSLBM 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't forget this is an encyclopedia not an instruction manual. :) Abtract 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hart's rules
- You made what to me seemed a strange edit in the Quotation mark article. It seems to have done no harm but I would like to understand it if you care to explain? :) Abtract 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- My intent was to linkify the book's name. When I went to the book's Wikipedia article, it appeared to give the book's name as I wikified it. In preparing a reply to your question, I looked at the book's home page as given in the article. There I found that it was less clear. The book went through 39 editions over 90 years. The following editions had actual images of the title page.
Publication | Edition | Title |
---|---|---|
March 1893 | broadsheet | Rules for Compositors and Readers, which are to be observed in all cases where no special instructions are given |
April 1893 | 1st | Rules for Compositors and Readers, which are to be observed in all cases where no special instructions are given |
January 1896 | 5th | Rules for Compositors and Readers Employed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford |
January 1901 | 10th | Rules for Compositors and Readers Employed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford |
January 1902 | 12th | Rules for Compositors and Readers Employed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford |
March 1904 | 15th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
July 1905 | 19th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
January 1909 | 21st | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
January 1914 | 23rd | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
May 1930 | 29th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
December 1938 | 30th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
December 1938 | 31st | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
February 1946 | 33rd | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
June 1948 | 34th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
July 1950 | 35th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1952 | 36th | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1954 | 36th, 1st reprint | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1957 | 36th, 2nd reprint | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1961 | 36th, 3rd reprint | Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1967 | 37th | Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1978 | 38th | Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
1983 | 39th | Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford |
2002 | new | The Oxford Guide to Style (OGS) |
What is the correct title? Well, the book's own web site refers to the different editions generically as Hart's Rules. What do you think?--JoeFriday (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG ... thanks but all I meant was why did you change it from this - Hart's Rules - to this - Hart's Rules ? (you will have to go into edit mode to see what I mean. Abtract 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't consciously do that. It wasn't linkified before. When I linkified it, I absent mindedly copied the link name from the browser's address bar instead of from the article heading.--JoeFriday (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK thanks ... I thought I was missing something. Abtract 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Another typographic consideration
I'm not going to deposit this in the article since I have no references for it, but I'm wondering if someone might be interested enough in the topic to seek out a reference or figure out a way it could be mentioned, if it's worthy:
Personal preferences for placement of quotation marks can also be affected by the aesthetics of monospace (fixed-width font) typography, such as is used on older computer terminals, typewriters, and edit boxes in HTML forms (such as the one you probably use every time you edit on Wikipedia). For example, the "extra" space that naturally surrounds a period or comma in a monospace font, when added to the space that surrounds quotation marks, can sometimes make a following quotation mark seem too distant—whereas when a period or comma follows a quotation mark, the effect, for some, is less noticable, despite the same amount of space existing between the quote and the period or comma. Of course, this can vary with the font's characteristics. Similar concerns affect the use of single or double spaces to separate sentences, and spacing around dashes.
Thanks. —mjb (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
that the pre-supposes things
Something's missing from this sentence: "For example, to indicate that it is not official terminology or that the pre-supposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with."
It is in the third bullet point in the "Signaling unusual usage" section. I understand what the point is, but can not safely guess the missing word. --Cyhawk (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sentence was thus already when it was originally introduced. I assume that "the" should simply have been "it". For clarity, I've replaced the whole sentence by this:
- "For example, to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase pre-supposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with."
- --Lambiam 06:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Single Quotes in BBC-News Headlines
Recent (January 10, 2008) BBC-News articles have a plethora of single quotes that appear to fall somewhere between irony and unusual usage. A sampling follows:
McCain 'wins' crucial US primary. 'Trash tsar' to clear Naples dirt. Sarkozy 'serious' about ex-model. 'Drug lord' Brazil homes for sale. Spain captures 'airport bombers'. Malaysia visa policy 'tightened'. Intel 'undermined' laptop project. Chad 'launches Darfur air raids'. Recession in the US 'has arrived'. Britons 'richer than Americans'. Home price fall 'risks Rock sale'. Grass biofuels 'cut CO2 by 94%'. Japan opens 'tallest lift tower'. Circumcision 'does not curb sex'.
I can certainly appreciate your quote of the Chicago Manual of Style which points out, "Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."
I am still at a loss as to how to interpret this surfeit of confusing and annoying punctuation. Would that it would wane. I have asked BBC-News directly, but have received no reply.
WILLOBIE (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It couldn't possibly be the words of someone quoted in the story? —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The BBC sure does love to use their scare quotes don't they, haha Travis Cleveland (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheese has three e’s
Eh? Es or es surely? Michael Wincott (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- As the e is lowercase, the apostrophe is considered correct, but yes, es or "e"s would be better, preferable the former. Reywas92Talk 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Mac how-to
To repeat a suggestion I've made at Talk:Quotation mark glyphs, the following would be rather useful info here. Also, the Glyphs secttion here should really have a summary of the main article, and not just a link to it. Please. My own expertise is extremely limited, but a brief summary is needed. Anyway;
On the Apple Macintosh, many special characters are available by typing while holding down the option key, or option and shift keys together, and these are shown in the Keyboard Viewer. In Macintosh English-language keyboard layouts, the curved opening single quotation mark is typed option-], and a curved closing single quotation mark (apostrophe) is typed with the shortcut option-shift-].
Similarly, the curved curved “double” quotation marks are typed option-[ and option-shift-[.)
On mac OS X the Character Palette gives access to all the unicode characters, including primes, and can show the unicode tables giving the number. I've shown a version of the paragraphs above at Apostrophe#Entering typographic apostrophes which also shows how to enter unicode characters in MS Windows. Presumably this info should appear here, not sure how to organise it - a new subsection? ... dave souza, talk 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
“Double low„ quotation marks.
There's no information on the “double low„ quotation mark, usually (it seems to me) used in larger print quotations or when quoting aphorisms in particular. It is unicode “U+201E Double Low-9 Quotation Mark„ (use of double low quotation marks solely for emphasis ;-) ) Nagelfar (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- AFAIK, this mark is only used in other languages than English, and then only as an opening quotation mark. It is mentioned as such in Quotation mark, non-English usage. --Lambiam 07:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Commas in Lists with Quotation Marks
Suppose I have a list of phrases/words that I use in quotation marks, how would I punctuate them? Example:
- Aladdin's three wishes were: "fast cars", "green gold", and "more food."
or
- Aladdin's three wishes were: "fast cars," "green gold," and "more food."
So this isn't a great example, but it was the only one I could think of on short notice. Perhaps the answer is just to italicize the phrases... --71.172.37.93 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Quotation spanning several paragraphs
This subsection just repeats information from the introductory paragraphs, with less detail but a longer example. Is there any reason we can't lose it/merge it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.199.120 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see this information mentioned at all in the introductory paragraphs or anywhere else in the article, except once, in that subsection. What sentence(s) are you referring to in the introductory paragraphs? --Lambiam 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Logical punctuation in interrupted full sentences
Is it true that the following sentence is correct under both the US and the UK systems?
"HAL," noted Frank, "said that everything was going extremely well."
It seems like it should be
"HAL", noted Frank, "said that everything was going extremely well."
-- since the first comma is (presumably) not part of the quoted material.
--Truth About Spelling (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I agree, but are you saying we should remove the example? Truth About Spelling (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of quotation marks has flipped
It seems to me that the "history of quotation marks" on the Wikipedia page on quotation has omitted to mention the very most important thing about the history of these marks. That very most important thing is that the function of quotation marks has completely reversed itself since the idea of copyright has evolved. This reversal occurred at around the middle of the 19th Century. What the marks previously meant was something like <<What is inside these marks is public material, not my own, it is merely something that I have at one time or another copied into my Commonplace Book, and which I now am copying from my Commonplace Book into the body of what I am here writing.>> At that point, since what was within the quotes was not private material, there was no necessity to acknowledge anyone’s private ownership, and thus we frequently see the material appear without any footnote or other attribution. At the earlier moment, copyright was something that inhered in the publisher of a text, not in the author of that text. The quotation marks earlier delimited something that was public material to which no personal claim was being made, rather than something that was private and proprietary material. Then at about the midpoint of the 19th Century the situation got stood on its head. In the development of capitalism, copyright had become something that inhered in the originating author of the text rather than in its publisher. The copy right of the publisher had become something that was derivative of the author, something which the printer needed to purchase from the writer. It was this change that caused the function of the quotation mark to reverse itself. Instead of delimiting something that was public material to which no personal claim was being made, they gradually came to delimit something that was private and proprietary material, that the author of the text had not himself or herself originated. At that point it made sense to not only indicate that what was inside the marks was private and proprietary material, but also, to acknowledge the author who had created that string of words. We can see this in Thoreau’s published writings. He seldom indicates who the author was, of some string of words that he is copying out of his Commonplace Book into the text of something he is writing. At that time, no-one would have expected him to do this. The function of the marks was something like <<Don’t quote this as originating with me; I didn’t originate this particular snippet.>> [Austin Meredith, kouroo@brown.edu] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.216.105 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Typing quotation marks on a computer"
The writing in this section is rather weird.
I mean, I start reading it, and it begins:
Although they are so common in writing, quotation marks and apostrophes are surprisingly difficult to type on a computer keyboard, especially with a Windows keyboard.
And I think, "Really? It's that hard to hit shift and the quotes key at the same time?" And then I read on:
The majority of people have no idea how to type them, instead using typewriter quotation marks and apostrophes (" and ').
And then I think, "Okay, so it's talking about the difference between those two types of quotation marks. But isn't a 'typewriter quotation mark' STILL a quotation mark? I know how to type a quotation mark even if it's just a 'typewriter quotation mark.'" As far as I can see, the article makes no mention beforehand of the difference between curvy and straight marks in normal writing, or the typewriter kind or the other kind, and then all of a sudden it's telling me I don't know how to type a quotation mark. (I know this stuff is discussed at the glyphs article, but there should still be some kind of context here if you're going to be talking about the different kinds. Also, I don't think I'm the only person who wouldn't instantly realize that "glyphs" means the different symbols I'm talking about here. I'm sure it's not that well-known a word.)
And then there's the chart, which does tell me how to make the "other kind," which is interesting to know. But does anyone actually use that kind in normal writing? With the hitting-five-keys-every-single-time (if you're on Windows, anyway)? The preceding paragraph, where it talks about "the majority" (which I'm assuming is total OR), gives the impression that those in-the-know actually use this tactic every time they use quotes.
And THEN it talks about the smart quotes and the dumb quotes, which I think should be discussed earlier, because most people who read this are going to be thinking, "Wait, this doesn't make sense, because when I open Word and start typing I don't need to do all this stuff to make the quotes show up all curvy."
I would try to rewrite the section myself (and I actually started an attempt), but I don't really have the subject matter expertise to be clear, especially when it comes to that question of whether typewriter quotes are REAL quotes and if there's another name for the non-typewriter kind. I just wanted to note these observations in hope that someone else with more knowledge may understand and agree with them and make improvements. Propaniac (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- What about some people online who use * as a quotation mark for certain rhetorical phrases like so called freedom and *democracy* ???173.28.241.5 (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
When a person speaking quotes someone else.
What are the rules about someone who is speaking quotes someone else?
Would it be
"In chapter 8 of his Art of War Sun Tzu states "Therefore, the general who knows the advantages of the nine changes knows how to use the troops,"" said the professor. (each quote being closed)
or
"In chapter 8 of his Art of War Sun Tzu states "Therefore, the general who knows the advantages of the nine changes knows how to use the troops," said the professor. (with just one closing quote)
or
"In chapter 8 of his Art of War Sun Tsu states 'Therefore, the general who knows the advantages of the nine changes knows how to use the troops,'" said the professor. (single quotes around the Sun Tzu quote and double quotes around the professor's actual words)?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The second of the three is definitely wrong. The first is potentially confusing. So almost all style guides stipulate the third. Or, of course (especially in British English), single quote marks for the professor and double for Sun Tsu. It looks a bit awkward with a single quote mark immediately followed by a double, so sometimes (in typeset copy) a thin space is inserted between them. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Code is not English
I have "logical" issues with the following bit:
Logical quotation differs from British style in its treatment of colons and semicolons. British and American styles both place them outside the quote marks all the time, while logical-technical style allows them to be placed inside. (An example would be a reference to the C programming language statement, 'printf("Hello, world");'.)
Anything that is written in code cannot automatically be regarded as English (except in the sense that English itself is a species of code). Code is literally a set of instructions to a processor; for computers, code is formatted in such a way that a compiler can readily translate it into machine language. So the example given is misleading because C uses the semicolon as an operator rather than as a punctuation mark. I'd even argue that the single quotes that buttress the C command line should be double quotes because (again) the double quotes inside the command line are operators, not punctuation.
A better example of the use of a semicolon or colon before an end-quote would be, 'The encyclopedist wrote "Common punctuation errors;" instead of "Common punctuation errors:".' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.19.169 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is not whether something is code or not but rather whether the period or comma could confuse the reader. I prefer "To write a long dash on Wikipedia, type in '
—
'." It serves a double purpose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
We need better sources for LQ
We need more sources for so-called logical punctuation, WP:LQ. The instructions described in the WP:MoS differ from British style, so we can't just use Cambridge or Hart. I might be able to get my hands on a copy of the ACS style guide, but it would take a few days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm contemplating removing the entire passage on LQ until we can find some better sources for it. There is a discussion on WT:MoS about it. Any input? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should not write anything anywhere that isn't supported by good sources—and I don't mean random websites. Who calls it "logical quotation," for example? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 02:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are a few sources that call it "logical punctuation." While I would personally prefer to downplay this name because it erroneously implies that British practice is better than American, people do use it. [A handbook http://books.google.com/books?id=yaj3PqRx8YgC&pg=PA277&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false] [And a text on early modern English http://books.google.com/books?id=y9ChTlB59BAC&pg=PA58&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false] I'm skeptical about Language Log. It's a blog written by professionals, but there's a lot of ranting. We should probably cite anything we see on LL as the specific professional opinion (these guys are mostly professors with PhDs) of each specific blogger.
- Also, we should mention the U.S. and Canada specifically if that's what we mean. North America also includes Mexico and there are people there who speak English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)