I may be being a bit pedantic, but this is something that has long bothered me. I have some questions about punctuation commonly used on the board.

According The Associated Press Stylebook, 2004



The same rules apply in Kate Turabian and Strunk and White.

Speaking of Bess Wallace, who became Bess Truman, David McCullough writes correctly, “But then you see Madge Wallace didn’t think any man was good enough for Bess.”

If McCullough had written:

“But then you see Madge Wallace didn’t think any man was good enough for Bess”.

That would not have been correct.

Larry McMurtry, in his first novel Horseman, Pass By (filmed as Hud)writes correctly:

“Reason I had you look. I couldn’t figure a heifer just dropping dead like that. Do you know for sure what it means?”

This would have been incorrect:

“Reason I had you look. I couldn’t figure a heifer just dropping dead like that. Do you know for sure what it means”?

In his new thread, j10pilot got it right.

Do you think there already is a "global culture"? Or there will be a "global culture" in the future?

This would be incorrect:

Do you think there already is a "global culture?” Or there will be a "global culture" in the future?

Is routinely and indiscriminately putting punctuation outside quotation marks some sort of fad, like walking around with untied shoes? I’ve been out of school several decades. How is this being taught in today’s schools?

"Didn't you retire"?

I'm not sure how this is taught, as I had to pick it up from reading and writing and from style manuals. Experience shows me that this is something which is very hard for people to get a handle on. It's something which has to become second nature, or people will fumble around trying to figure out what is correct.

You see this in other grammatical situations. The strange use of the word "myself" -- as in, "Give your reports to Ms. Smith and myself." -- comes about, I think, because people are worrying too much about when to say "I" and when to say "me." What they really need is a feel for correct grammar, and that can only come about through a lot of reading and writing. A similar thing happens, I think, when people try to figure out when to use an apostrophe. Because there are some very rare situations in which it is needed to form a plural, people worry about it and think that you have to use it to form the plural all the time. This leads to the signs that say things like "Apple's for sale." (Not to mention the confusion over "it's" and "its.")

I saw a similar blind spot when I very briefly served as a tutor in basic mathematics for people working for their GED. The thing that really tripped people up, time and time again, was the use of fractions. I don't know how many times people asked me to show them the "trick" of manipulating fractions, or how often they would just guess that you were supposed to invert the fraction, and so on. Again, I think they had heard something about fractions -- particularly the fact that the easiest way to divide by a fraction is to invert it and multiply -- without having any feel for it. They were vaguely familiar with this "trick" but had no grasp of how it should be used, or why.

It seems that Alexander Pope was right.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

-- An Essay on Criticism (1711)

(Just to demonstrate my own shallow draughts, I had to look up the fact that Pieria is a region of Greece where the Muses were said to dwell.)

I know I goof it up sometimes. If you find that I've used the quotation marks the wrong way, just PM me within the time frame and I'll correct the error(s).

Most of the examples given can be reworded to avoid the conflict. Also, using double quotation marks instead of italics in a word processor isn't very good form. Speaking of good form, "illegitimate" words shouldn't be quoted. The reason why should be explained. Most people are not mind readers.

The college that I worked with used Little Brown, and that was a real mess. My preference is Chicago. I hate the NYT style guide (N.Y.T.).

Above all, I love editors. The second set of eyes really helps out. Being your own editor is like being your own lawyer.

As far as people walking around with lose laces, eh, whatever. If you like falling flat on your face, go ahead.

Punctuation generally goes within the quoted material. Why would you want to put it outside? It's a freaking quote. An exception I've seen is with cited material, "cuz when you cite, you need the page number" (p. 36). "And what if there's a question?" (p. 47). "Holy Cripe!" (p. 109).

Well, do you agree with: "No matter how much they teach us, we never learn anything new" (p. 4,587)?

Okay, that looks like another exception. I suppose there are others.

Editors. Love those editors. Editing, yuck!

I differ slightly with the AP Stylebook - though, like G.B. Shaw, I tend to make and follow my own grammatical rules in some respects. In that previous sentence, for example, I indicated a dash with a hypen surrounded by spaces - rather than the preferred double-hyphen with no spaces--which I think looks stupid. Similarly, I left no space between the "G." and the "B." which, technically, should be there. I just prefer the more ergonomic version.

Anyway, regarding quote punctuation, unlike the Associated Press, I would also place periods and commas outside the quotation marks when applying to the whole sentence. For example: The Prime Minister called the whole thing "a bloody mess". To me, that makes more sense than this: The Prime Minister called the whole thing "a bloody mess." To use the j10pilot example, I would also consider this to be correct (by my highly personal grammatical rules): I don't think there is a "global culture". The AP would say it should be this: I don't think there is a "global culture." I just don't like it. I'm quoting the phrase, not the period.

And I also feel that what's good for the semicolon is good for the comma. The AP Stylebook would apparently consider this wrong: She variously described him as "pompous", "priggish", "pretentious", and "pedantic". Evidently, it should look like this: She variously described him as "pompous," "priggish," "pretentious," and "pedantic." I would almost prefer this: She variously described him as "pompous... priggish... pretentious... [and] pedantic." This would, presumably, also be acceptable and, to me, it beats all those hanging quotation marks. And, again, I'm not quoting commas (which may not have existed in the original), I'm quoting adjectives.

In general, I regard such stylistic vagaries as unimportant unless they affect the sense of what's being written. As a rule, I don't think that punctuating inside or outside the quotation marks does.

I should add, though - unsurprisingly to some, no doubt - that I tend to be a total pedant when it comes to the grammar with which I do concur - and find misspellings and misusages (like "your" for "you're" and vice versa) particularly irksome.

Oh lord then my dear Wertz, I am sure you have burned me in effigy and use my likeness as a dart board- I am so horrible with those rules!

I have learned that with question and exclamation marks that if they apply to the whole sentence, place them outside the quotation marks--if they apply to the to the stuff only inside the quotation marks, place them inside.

On periods, I bend the "rules" sometime for clarity.
Like: Type, "this is cool".

Yahno, there are different kinds of writing. There's the casual stuff, like here and in letters, journals, notes or anything meant for forgiving eyes. Then there are the papers you do for school, which are usually so stiff regarding punctuation as to be disturbing, nightmare generators. Then there's writing for publication, the paying gigs. Oh yeah, business scribbling, which is about the same as writing here. Oops, technical writing -- boring and numbing, a real imagination killer. Good pay though.

Maybe journalism has a special slot too. Seems like the rules, whatever they might be, aren't followed very strictly in journalism. Some people have a lot of fun dinking journalists, or actually, newspaper editors. Imagine writing for a living and always having short deadlines. Um, yeah. I don't have to imagine that.

National Geographic is one of the notable exceptions. The staff has a good handle on the formal style, and I've yet to get jarred reading their work.

On the paying gigs, writers who are known have the luxury of inventing their own styles. For example, I've seen dialog done with dashes instead of double quotations, an attempt to get rid of the whole quotation mark problem. Otherwise, better follow some kind of style guide, hopefully one that actually takes a stand on issues rather than jumping all over the place. Little Brown is notorious for being gutless.

Agreeing with Wertz, the em dash is one of the more foolish decisions made along the way -- I think we ought to use arrows >>--> cuz that's what the em dash is <--<<

But then I'm not GB Shaw. "Thah-wunk! >>-->0"

I, too, think the--looks stupid. If, however, you type the post in a word processor first, it becomes a—(long dash) which I think looks pretty cool.

I think J10pilot's example is a good one, and it illustrates a really simple rule governing punctuation of quotes that I learned so long ago I tend to assume it's common sense.

In essence, if the punctuation was in the original quote, put it inside the quote marks. So if there was a question "global culture?" (perhaps said with incredulity that such a thing could exist) then it's legitimate to

Is routinely and indiscriminately putting punctuation outside quotation marks some sort of fad, like walking around with untied shoes?

If ignorance is a fad, then yes; otherwise no.

I think what is a modern trend is the thinking that ignorance is not something to be rectified. It's old-fashioned and counter-productive to think it's something to be ashamed of, certainly - that kind of thing just keeps people from asking questions - outside of rhetoric and the courtroom, the only useful purpose served by questions is to find out things you don't already know.

But once you become aware of it, you should at least try to educate yourself. When you learn something new, it can never hurt to try to remember it in case it comes in handy another time.

Ignorance isn't necessarily reprehensible – you can't use a rule you don't know about, after all. However, once it's been pointed out that you don't know something, I think it's incumbent on you to try to apply the knowledge you once lacked.

However, I think today's popular culture takes anti-intellectualism to such extremes that it can sometimes activley celebrate blind, wilful ignorance. For those of you passingly familiar with British reality TV, this phenomenon alone explains the TV career of Jade Goody.

I’ve been out of school several decades. How is this being taught in today’s schools?

Badly, though I think it was ever thus.

I learned that rule in grade school and still remember it....but I never follow it because it looks stupid IMHO. Why would you include the punctuation in the quotes? It's just dumb. So I don't do it. I'm not confused or ignorant, just stubborn not to follow dumb rules.

It's like the other rule I learned that I never follow, using commas prior to the use of "and". I.e. "Bill ran, swam, and jumped". I think that's dumb as well. I think that rule was modified to allow not including the comma.

I think it's a free-for-all these days. Do what looks right, not what they teach you.

I was under the impression that this period-inside-quotes rule was an Americanism, and that the Brits happily put commas and periods after the quotes, using the same rule as for question marks.



I like the serial comma. I heard a story about an author whose editor kept removing them, until he threatened to dedicate the book to "My parents, God and Mother Teresa."

I can understand the confusion in a sentence like:

"The hen, the dog, the bride and groom, and the chicken".

That may have led to the use of the comma after the "and".

But to me the extra comma looks too busy. No comma reads better IMHO, it's like you're coming to the end of the list, so you can pause and then say 'and ....'.

For ex: "The dog, the hen, the cat, the bird and the mouse" vs.

"The dog, the hen, the cat, the bird, and the mouse"


Just by quick inspection you can see it's a list and where it ends. It looks less muddled.

Actually, I think the comma looks icky when placed outside the quotation marks.

William Strunk’s, Jr. and E. B. White’s highly regarded little book, The Elements of Style explains:





I personally prefer to leave out the last comma.

Robert C. Pinckert writes in his book, Pinckert’s Practical Grammar:



Writing on boards like this one is usually informal. I would suggest that either way is correct.



This is the tragedy of the internet. Apparently there are no grammatical rules. It seems odd to me that we would spend so much time and money preparing kids to pass standardized tests and then throw those standards out the net’s window. Kids actually do use the net to homework assignments. Are we, particularly some of the blogs, not setting a bad example.

Edikted to fix typo.

Interesting. I always use the final comma. "Red, white, and blue" just looks better to me than "red, white and blue." When I see the final comma missing, I always think the last two items are supposed to be linked in a way that the others are not, in the way that you might link "ham and eggs" as one dish.

To me, both of these sentences look OK:

"We had orange juice, oatmeal, ham, and eggs."

"We had orange juice, oatmeal, and ham and eggs."

(Although I would prefer the first one.)

To me, this sentence looks strange:

"We had orange juice, oatmeal, ham and eggs."

No matter how I look at it, I see a comma or the word "and" missing.

I might also mention that I love semicolons; that I adore the way they set off long phrases which are not quite sentences; that I am delighted by the stately cadence they give to a very long and complex sentence.

I like your style, Ms. Lobo de Plata.

Ha! I laughed out loud when I read this. I have always had a problem with this rule because they changed it on me when I was midway through high school and I can never keep it straight. I remember that they changed it, I just can't remember which it was changed from and which it was changed too. This anecdote may be the way for me to remember that the way that looks wrong is actually right.

As for semicolons...ACK! I avoid them like the plague. As for commas, the more the merrier.

Next question is how many spaces after a period? Typing class said two but does anyone use more than one?

When typing on a typewriter all the letters took up the amount of same space, so it was necessary to use two spaces after a period.

Word processors use proportionally spaced type. In other words, a lower case "i" will take up less apace that a capital "M" or "W." With proportionally spaced letters, only one space is desired. This was more of a technologically change than a rule change.

After typing on a typewriter for years, it took me what seems like forever to quit using the second space.

I still always use two spaces after a period. If nothing else, this comes from years of typing on an old-fashioned typewriter.

Does it show up that way here? Let me try a test.

How many spaces after this sentence? One.

How many spaces after this sentence? Two.

EDIT: It appears to look the same. Since it apparently makes no difference, I'll keep typing two spaces after each sentence to make my fingers happy.

My English teachers since I was in second grade informed us that everything we write that is meant to be spoken or credited to a source is meant to be within quotes, including punctation such as periods, question marks, exclamation points, commas, colons and semicolons.

And if what you're quoting doesn't include such punctuation, should it be within or without the quotation marks? For example, you said above that "everything we write that is meant to be spoken or credited to a source is meant to be within quotes". Following "within quotes", you had a comma, not a period. The sentence I composed as an example has a period after "within quotes". Should it go inside or outside the quotation marks? I would argue that it should be punctuated as I punctuated it, with the period after the quotation mark. I realize that this contravenes The Elements of Style), but what can I say? I'm a rebel.

Thinking about this some more, I think that rules of grammar and punctuation should not be the enemy of clarity.

Strict adherence to the rules might be interpreted to mena that the sentence you quote should have a full stop' (or 'period') inside the quote, because there was one in the source, and outside the quote, because your own sentence needs some indication that it has come to an end. i.e. "everything we write that is meant to be spoken or credited to a source is meant to be within quotes.".

But that just looks clumsy, doesn't it?

I think, therefore, that all the rules can be bent or broken, but only for a particular reason to do with meaning - usually clarity. Ending sentences with a preposition is usually frowned upon. e.g. "Where are you going to?", "The grave is the place we are all going to."

We do it all the time in conversation, but occasionally a written sentence makes far more sense with a final preposition than it does without one; sometimes the 'correct' sentence structure results in the kind of English that authors of complex legal documents or technical instruction manuals strive towards.

In the above two examples, "the grave is the place we are all going to." just feels really clunky, and really should be "the grave is the place to which we all go." or something similar. Better still "we are all going to the grave".

To go back to the education question, though, it's essential for the rules to be taught in the first place, otherwise you never really get to the point where you can tell if the meaning is there or not. More particularly, you can't tell if it is the one you intended. You can only sensibly break rules if you know they are there to begin with. (Hooray! I mnaged to end on a sentence ending with a preposition that makes some kind of sense!)

I have a question, but first a little background.

As far back as the 8th grade, I've known that we are supposed to use plural verbs with the conditional tense. I had a great English teacher in 8th and 9th grade, though at the time few of us liked her.

When I went to high school, I didn't crack the book in 10th grade English, turned in no home work and then got the highest grade in the class on the six weeks test. My teacher asked how I could do nothing for six weeks and then knock the top out of the test. I told him I had Miss L for English two years and she had taught me most of the stuff on the test. He simply said he had taught some of her other students who did well.

We learned parts of speech, tense and did a lot of work diagramming sentences. It is my understanding that, at least in some schools, students no longer diagram sentences.

If I were you is correct.

If I was you, sometimes used in Texas speech, is wrong.

The other day I posted something, in proof reading it, I noticed I used was with if. Fearing Miss L's ghost was peering over my shoulder, I edited the post.

My question is:

Is there any logic behind this convention?