Grammer question, using punctuation with quotes

[Minnie_the_Minx]

There's a difference between speech and quotations. Don't punctuate quotations with commas, stat.

stat

Are you a doctor?

 

[Orang Utan]

Don't punctuate quotations with commas, stat.

There's no rule that says you shouldn't. If it's a long quotation, it will need commas.

 

[stat]

thanks for the responses everyone

((((posters on this thread))))

 

[ymu]

Mercifully easy - first hit on google. *punches fist*

http://www.iolani.honolulu.hi.us/Keables/KeablesGuide/PartFour/TitlesEndPunctDashesParen.htm#paren1

Parentheses

Paren: use parentheses to set off an interruption. Without the parenthesis in the sentence below, readers might think one uncle served dishonorably:

Three of my four uncles served with honor in the war (the other was too young to enlist).

1. Punctuation with parentheses. As in the model sentence above, periods and other end punctuation go outside the close of a parenthesis. No punctuation mark can precede a parenthesis, but a comma can follow one:

Like three of my four uncles (the other was too young), my father served with honor.

Occasionally a parenthesis stands on its own as a sentence; if so, capitalize the first word and place end punctuation inside the parenthesis.

Three of my four uncles served with honor. (The other was too young to enlist.)

A question mark or exclamation point, if it is part of the parenthetical material, can go inside a parenthesis, but another punctuation mark is needed to close the sentence:

Miranda's frequent exclamations express pity ("O, woe the day!" "O the heavens!" "Alack, for mercy!") and wonder ("O, wonder!" "O brave new world!").

He prolly knows all about "" too.

 

[Orang Utan]

but isn't that like saying full stop full stop as a question mark acts as a full stop doesn't it?

But if the question mark is in parentheses, there is no punctuation outside them to indicate that the sentence is at an end. I have always been confused by this matter.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Mercifully easy - first hit on google. *punches fist*

http://www.iolani.honolulu.hi.us/Keables/KeablesGuide/PartFour/TitlesEndPunctDashesParen.htm#paren1



He prolly knows all about "" too.

Woo betide any of my students that try pulling that on out on me. NO I say!

 

[ymu]

Surely it's unnecessy?

Not if the ? only belongs to the clause in the parentheses - if the whole sentence isn't a question, it doesn't make sense to close it with ?, but you need the ? to close the question. So you close them both, one after the other.

Anyhoo, Dr whatsisname does an OK job.

 

[laptop]

It's up to you - so long as you're consistent.

Broadly, you have a choice between:

• Chicago style - which always puts the punctuation inside the quote, on the grounds that this". looks ugly on the page
• Oxford style - which puts the punctuation inside if it's part of the quote - for example if the quoted matter is capable of being a sentence." (even if it's wasn't a sentence in the original) - and otherwise puts it outside.

I prefer Oxford style on the grounds that it preserves more information.

Unless you're writing for a publication that has supplied you with a style book listing the arbitrary choices they've made, in which case follow that.

 

[editor]

"English for Journalists" by Wynford Hicks is a great resource for writers battling with punctuation/grammar issues.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

But if the question mark is in parentheses, there is no punctuation outside them to indicate that the sentence is at an end. I have always been confused by this matter.

I give up. Reading ymu's post above is enough to give me a headache

 

[stat]

It's up to you - so long as you're consistent.

Broadly, you have a choice between:

• Chicago style - which always puts the punctuation inside the quote, on the grounds that this". looks ugly on the page
• Oxford style - which puts the punctuation inside if it's part of the quote - for example if the quoted matter is capable of being a sentence." (even if it's wasn't a sentence in the original) - and otherwise puts it outside.

I prefer Oxford style on the grounds that it preserves more information.

Unless you're writing for a publication that has supplied you with a style book listing the arbitrary choices you've made, in which case follow that.

'as long as you're consistent' <-- top advice. I think I'll go with Oxford stylee~

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hart's Rules is good too.

 

[warszawa]

There's no rule that says you shouldn't. If it's a long quotation, it will need commas.

Maybe inside the quotation itself, of course. However, long quotations should begin on a new line and be preceded by a colon.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Maybe inside the quotation itself, of course. However, long quotations should begin on a new line and be preceded by a colon.

Never heard that one

 

[spanglechick]

Maybe inside the quotation itself, of course. However, long quotations should begin on a new line and be preceded by a colon.

news to me.

 

[warszawa]

Never heard that one

If they run into several sentences they should, as you'll find in a 'Good Writing Guide', like Chambers, Collins, etc.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

If they run into several sentences they should, as you'll find in a 'Good Writing Guide', like Chambers, Collins, etc.

It's alright, I don't write enough that I'm going to bother finding out

 

[stat]

Never heard that one

news to me.

uh-oh. How should it be done then? I normally do it like this:

blah blah blah. Dr. Proctor, however, disagrees:
"The flanges on the Ganges have never seen such banshees. What is needed now is a wadical paradigm shift in how we percieve the cross-functionality of popular representations of ghosts and ghouls in the sub-continent" (Dr. Proctor, 2000)
This quote illustrates the need for clarity in academia. Blah blah blah

(but with the whole quote indented)

 

[warszawa]

uh-oh. How should it be done then? I normally do it like this:

blah blah blah. Dr. Proctor, however, disagrees:
"The flanges on the Ganges have never seen such banshees. What is needed now is a wadical paradigm shift in how we percieve the cross-functionality of popular representations of ghosts and ghouls in the sub-continent" (Dr. Proctor, 2000)
This quote illustrates the need for clarity in academia. Blah blah blah

(but with the whole quote indented)

The above is good. There's no need even for quotation marks for quotes set out as above, just an indentation.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

The above is good. There's no need even for quotation marks for quotes set out as above, just an indentation.

Oh right, I see what you mean. I thought you meant a colon in FRONT of the sentence

 

[laptop]

uh-oh. How should it be done then? I normally do it like this:
(but with the whole quote indented)

You mean like this:

blah blah blah. Dr. Proctor, however, disagrees:
[INDENT]

"The flanges on the Ganges have never seen such banshees. What is needed now is a wadical paradigm shift in how we percieve the cross-functionality of popular representations of ghosts and ghouls in the sub-continent"

(Dr. Proctor, 2000)​

[/INDENT]
This quote illustrates the need for clarity in academia. Blah blah blah

If you're indenting then the quote marks themselves are optional - again, your decision, so long as you're entirely consistent. I leave them off. The indendation is sufficient indication that it's quoted. You may want to style it 1pt smaller, as well.

 

[tarannau]

Agreed, quote marks look a bit peculiar in instances with long quotes like that.

A publication's style guide is the most important thing to follow in many ways. Generally I find that US publications favour more formal and slightly archaic use of punctuation.

 

[ymu]

I give up. Reading ymu's post above is enough to give me a headache

If the bit in brackets is a question all on its own, it gets its own ? inside the bracket and the main sentence gets the full stop it needs outside.

So it can look a bit odd sometimes (see what I mean?).

Same is true of ! and " and ting.




edited 'cos Donna's such a freak.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

If the bit in brackets is a question all on it's own

!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[laptop]

and the main sentence gets the full stop it needs outside.

One more decision for the local style book. You're perfectly entitled to say that one "?" or "." closes all pending sentence-like structures.

That's what we'd do where I've been working today, and where I was yesterday too.

 

[ymu]

oh ffs! I had a hard enough time getting to grips with what was supposed to be correct, now you're giving me options?

(Are style guides really that anal? I'm sure I haven't seen any that detailed. )

 

[laptop]

oh ffs! I had a hard enough time getting to grips with what was supposed to be correct, now you're giving me options?

(Are style guides really that anal? I'm sure I haven't seen any that detailed. )

Oh, at least that anal.

I remember six people spending an entire morning at the N*w St*t*sm*n discussing whether Fascist had a cap "F" (I argued that the Fasces was a proper noun, and therefore it and its derivatives took a cap - and lost on the grounds that the Romans didn't do capitalisation anyway.)

Just this morning we were arguing over how many shepherds are involved in the cliché "Red sky at night, shepher[d's]|[ds'] delight".

 

[stat]

Oh, at least that anal.

I remember six people spending an entire morning at the N*w St*t*sm*n discussing whether Fascist had a cap "F" (I argued that the Fasces was a proper noun, and therefore it and its derivatives took a cap - and lost on the grounds that the Romans didn't do capitalisation anyway.)

Just this morning we were arguing over how many shepherds are involved in the cliché "Red sky at night, shepher[d's]|[ds'] delight".

 

[ymu]

Oh, at least that anal.

I remember six people spending an entire morning at the N*w St*t*sm*n discussing whether Fascist had a cap "F" (I argued that the Fasces was a proper noun, and therefore it and its derivatives took a cap - and lost on the grounds that the Romans didn't do capitalisation anyway.)

Just this morning we were arguing over how many shepherds are involved in the cliché "Red sky at night, shepher[d's]|[ds'] delight".

Gawd. I might be a little more sympathetic with the copy editors when they fuck up my carefully constructed to not be ambiguous without blowing the word count sentences if they have to go through all that crap.

So could "stop 'n' go" also be "stop 'n go" or doesn't it matter? (A poker publisher just made a call on this one for the title of a book and the thread is very very heated!)