Associated Press Stylebook: "Follow these long-established printers' rules: The period and the comma always go within the quotation marks. The dash, the semicolon, the question mark and the exclamation point go within the quotation marks when they apply to the quoted matter only. They go outside when they apply to the whole sentence."
 
Also: "Commas always go inside quotation marks."
 
MLA Handbook places the comma inside the quotation marks used to set off a title. It does the same with periods: "If a period is required after an underlined title that ends with a quotation mark, place the period before the quotation mark."
 
On quotations with end puncutation: "If the quotation ends with a question mark or an exclamation point, however, the original puncutation is retained, and no comma is required."
 
In addition: "By convention, commas and period that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks . . . . If a quotation ends with both single and ouble quotation marks, the comma or period precedes both. . . . All other punctuation marks — such as semicolons, colons, question marks, and exclamation points — go outside a closing quotation mark, except when they are part of the quoted material."

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:01 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig,

My use of quotations seems more like what you're suggesting, but mine has been shaped/contaminated by years of computer programming, where quotes are used to bound literals, rather like their use when you want to narrow a Google search.  I have not seen an clear articulation of this, and I think editors and truly rule-bound teachers will insist on including commas in periods within the quotation marks, even if they aren't a part of the quotation.  But for some reason, if I recall correctly, semicolons and question marks don't.  This is beginning to sound arcane and convoluted enough to make me wonder if rules for this vary with the teacher as much as understanding what passive voice does.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:39:59 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Beth Young <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Good Grief, Good Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline A tangent: talk of stylebooks always reminds me of this hilarious CHE article, which I'll excerpt here (but it's worth finding and reading the whole thing!): ---- Bauman, M. Garret. "The Devilments of Style." Chronicle of Higher Education; 11/9/2001, Vol. 48 Issue 11, pB5, 1p. RECENTLY I received a complimentary copy of a textbook devoted to teaching the research paper. Oh, there was a perfunctory section on how to compose the paper, but most of the 420 pages focused on differences among citation formats: MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association), CM (Chicago Manual of Style), and CBE (Council of Biology Editors). As the author of a textbook on writing, I have to keep up with my field, so I thumbed through to see if there was anything worth stealing for my next edition. I regret (as my readers must regret) that I can offer so few samples of the hundreds of variations. The text patiently explained that an author's first name should be spelled out (MLA and CM), reduced to initials with a period after each initial (APA), or reduced to initials with no period or space after each one (CBE). It told which format requires "and," which requires "&," and which avoids conjunctions; it explained when to use "pp" or "p" with page numbers and the three ways to indicate discontinuous pagination. The guidelines are more complex than they first appear. For instance, one group never uses "p," while others use it here but not there, and one uses it with no period, "unless it is the last item in an entry." This went on for hundreds of pages, and the text had "easy access" tabs so students could get lost faster. After 15 minutes, the book fell from my hands and I sat back -- appalled. Was it possible that I had published a textbook with only 16 pages on citation formats? The shame! I had simplified Rubik's Cube to a sugar cube and was spending hours in class teaching students how to evaluate sources and to reason, when I could have filled the time with date-placement and capitalization issues. I envision a new future for myself now. . . . ---- Beth To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:31:42 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Good Grief, Good Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Beth, Eric, Herb,
   Thanks much. I know within the works cited conventions, the period goes within the quotation marks for an article title (followed by the periodical title.) I just wish the handbooks would address this more directly. (For example: this rule holds even when the quotation marks don't enclose an actual quotation, but designate a word as word or title.)
   I try to finesse it by using italics, but that doesn't easily extend to other people's writing.
   Of course, this is the kind of tedious and arbitrary stuff that everyone associates with grammar.

Craig

Eric Muhr wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Associated Press Stylebook: "Follow these long-established printers' rules: The period and the comma always go within the quotation marks. The dash, the semicolon, the question mark and the exclamation point go within the quotation marks when they apply to the quoted matter only. They go outside when they apply to the whole sentence."
 
Also: "Commas always go inside quotation marks."
 
MLA Handbook places the comma inside the quotation marks used to set off a title. It does the same with periods: "If a period is required after an underlined title that ends with a quotation mark, place the period before the quotation mark."
 
On quotations with end puncutation: "If the quotation ends with a question mark or an exclamation point, however, the original puncutation is retained, and no comma is required."
 
In addition: "By convention, commas and period that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks . . . . If a quotation ends with both single and ouble quotation marks, the comma or period precedes both. . . . All other punctuation marks — such as semicolons, colons, question marks, and exclamation points — go outside a closing quotation mark, except when they are part of the quoted material."

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:01 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig,

My use of quotations seems more like what you're suggesting, but mine has been shaped/contaminated by years of computer programming, where quotes are used to bound literals, rather like their use when you want to narrow a Google search.  I have not seen an clear articulation of this, and I think editors and truly rule-bound teachers will insist on including commas in periods within the quotation marks, even if they aren't a part of the quotation.  But for some reason, if I recall correctly, semicolons and question marks don't.  This is beginning to sound arcane and convoluted enough to make me wonder if rules for this vary with the teacher as much as understanding what passive voice does.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:43:55 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Kathleen Bethell <[log in to unmask]> Subject: going to as auxiliary? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA58E0.E9EA614E" ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA58E0.E9EA614E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the sentence I am going to eat that banana, is to eat an infinitive? I want to say no, because going to is the equivalent of the modal will. Would going to be an auxiliary in this case? Kathleen Bethell To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA58E0.E9EA614E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In the sentence I am going to eat that banana, is to eat an infinitive? I want to say no, because going to is the equivalent of the modal will. Would going to be an auxiliary in this case? 
 
Kathleen Bethell
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA58E0.E9EA614E-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:43:03 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 This represents a fairly common problem of syntax and morphology not lining up with each other. Certainly "to eat" is an infinitive, but "to" also cliticizes to "going" when "going to" acts as a modal, as shown by its contraction to "gonna". When "going" is used with its motion meaning, as in Speaker A: I'm going to Muncie to meet a friend for lunch tomorrow. Speaker B: I'm going to use the Ball State library. Speaker B can't contract and still maintain the parallelism with Speaker A. Another instance of morphology/syntax conflict is the contracted 's from "is" as in "The ball's in play." Even though the predicate is clearly "is in play," the contracted copula cliticizes to the last word of the subject. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Bethell [[log in to unmask]] Sent: October 29, 2009 5:43 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: going to as auxiliary? In the sentence I am going to eat that banana, is to eat an infinitive? I want to say no, because going to is the equivalent of the modal will. Would going to be an auxiliary in this case? Kathleen Bethell To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:47:40 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2009-10-29, at 5:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > In the sentence I am going to eat that banana, is to eat an > infinitive? Imperative and subjunctive clauses aside, the verb to the far left is tensed (present or past tense). Simply speaking, all verbs that follow it are either participles (past or present) or infinitives (to- or bare). > I want to say no, because going to is the equivalent of the modal > will. I don't think they're entirely equivalent, but 'will' and the other modals are followed by bare infinitives, so make of that what you will. > Would going to be an auxiliary in this case? It doesn't have the NICE properties of auxiliary verbs (negation, inversion, code, emphasis). I think most grammars would say that 'be' ("I AM going to eat...") is the auxiliary verb. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:09 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2009-10-29, at 8:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > This represents a fairly common problem of syntax and morphology not > lining up with each other. Certainly "to eat" is an infinitive, but > "to" also cliticizes to "going" when "going to" acts as a modal, as > shown by its contraction to "gonna". I think overmuch is made of this phonological point. The 'to' in "planning to" has a similar realization, but nobody makes a big deal about 'planna'. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls 'to' a subordinator (a small set that also includes 'that', 'whether/if' and certain uses of 'for'). It's neither part of "be going to" nor part of the infinitive. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:23:20 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While I'm not entirely certain what I think phonological reduction in these cases *means*, I find that (in my own dialect, at least) there is a marked difference between the possibilities with "planning to" vs. "going to" or "want to." "Planning to" can reduce, but only to something like "planinda" -- there's still a dental stop in there. The stop is just gone in "wanna" and "gonna." "Fixing to" reduces to "fixinta" in my dialect, but "fitna" in Atlanta -- but the dental stop is there in both. "Wanna" and "gonna" seem *more* reduced than the others. Other aux-like combos with "to" (e.g. "supposed to," "have to"), a.k.a. quasimodals, preserve the dental stop, but don't seem entirely parallel -- nasals seem to figure into stop-dropping more often than do fricatives or other stops (e.g. the conversion of "sentence" to "sinanse" in Southern or "se'ens" in the Michigan variety of, um, Youngunese (or whatever I should call the language of young'uns). -- Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? Importance: Low On 2009-10-29, at 8:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > This represents a fairly common problem of syntax and morphology not > lining up with each other. Certainly "to eat" is an infinitive, but > "to" also cliticizes to "going" when "going to" acts as a modal, as > shown by its contraction to "gonna". I think overmuch is made of this phonological point. The 'to' in "planning to" has a similar realization, but nobody makes a big deal about 'planna'. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls 'to' a subordinator (a small set that also includes 'that', 'whether/if' and certain uses of 'for'). It's neither part of "be going to" nor part of the infinitive. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:44:21 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 While I have "gonna", "wanna", "useta", and "hafta, all of which are phonologically well-behaved, I don't have "planna" at all. I agree with Huddleston&Pullum on the lexical status of "to" and on its syntactic function, but that has little bearing on its behavior as a clitic. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds [[log in to unmask]] Sent: October 29, 2009 9:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? On 2009-10-29, at 8:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > This represents a fairly common problem of syntax and morphology not > lining up with each other. Certainly "to eat" is an infinitive, but > "to" also cliticizes to "going" when "going to" acts as a modal, as > shown by its contraction to "gonna". I think overmuch is made of this phonological point. The 'to' in "planning to" has a similar realization, but nobody makes a big deal about 'planna'. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls 'to' a subordinator (a small set that also includes 'that', 'whether/if' and certain uses of 'for'). It's neither part of "be going to" nor part of the infinitive. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:48:04 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I get both "wanna" and "waDa", where the latter has the alveolar tap and is nasalized throughout. For "center" and "winter" I get only the second of the two possibilities. Not a speaker of Youngunese for a long time, but definitely rural SE Michigan, pre-NCVS. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C [[log in to unmask]] Sent: October 29, 2009 10:23 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? While I'm not entirely certain what I think phonological reduction in these cases *means*, I find that (in my own dialect, at least) there is a marked difference between the possibilities with "planning to" vs. "going to" or "want to." "Planning to" can reduce, but only to something like "planinda" -- there's still a dental stop in there. The stop is just gone in "wanna" and "gonna." "Fixing to" reduces to "fixinta" in my dialect, but "fitna" in Atlanta -- but the dental stop is there in both. "Wanna" and "gonna" seem *more* reduced than the others. Other aux-like combos with "to" (e.g. "supposed to," "have to"), a.k.a. quasimodals, preserve the dental stop, but don't seem entirely parallel -- nasals seem to figure into stop-dropping more often than do fricatives or other stops (e.g. the conversion of "sentence" to "sinanse" in Southern or "se'ens" in the Michigan variety of, um, Youngunese (or whatever I should call the language of young'uns). -- Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: going to as auxiliary? Importance: Low On 2009-10-29, at 8:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > This represents a fairly common problem of syntax and morphology not > lining up with each other. Certainly "to eat" is an infinitive, but > "to" also cliticizes to "going" when "going to" acts as a modal, as > shown by its contraction to "gonna". I think overmuch is made of this phonological point. The 'to' in "planning to" has a similar realization, but nobody makes a big deal about 'planna'. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls 'to' a subordinator (a small set that also includes 'that', 'whether/if' and certain uses of 'for'). It's neither part of "be going to" nor part of the infinitive. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:28:10 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Good Grief, Good Grammar In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--552783500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) --Apple-Mail-1--552783500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The rule that commas and periods always go inside quotation marks is and has been for decades in the style manual of the US Government Printing Office. I recall reading it sometime in the mid-seventies. Ed S On Oct 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Does the rule change when using quotation marks to designate words > as words or for titles? In other words, is it only for actual > quotations? Has anyone seen a clear articulation of that? > > "The Negro Speaks of Rivers", "Harlem", and "Mother to Son" are > frequently anthologized Langston Hughes poems. > > "Beat", over the years, has taken on meanings beyond the core > meaning of repeatedly striking. > > Are those considered correct? > > Craig > > Beth Young wrote: >> >> Chiming in late . . . It's not just the NYT that cares about >> punctuation; many teachers will object to nonstandard punctuation >> of " and ,/. >> >> So I tell my students they have choices: >> >> 1. Punctuate the "logical" way and they'll probably be fine in >> Canada, UK, etc. but not in the US for those who know the other >> rule. They'll need to think about their punctuation each time. >> They'll risk looking uneducated to audiences that know the US rule. >> >> 2. Punctuate according to the US rule and they'll be fine for any >> US audience that knows the rule, and the rule requires less thought >> (punctuating ./, and " is always the same; they'll only need to >> think about other punctuation marks). >> >> I tell them to follow the US rule in my class because "house style" >> for our comp program = US rules. They can choose to do whatever >> they want, though, if they don't mind the consequences. I myself >> have been known to deliberately break rules I thought were >> silly . . . though as I grow older, breaking rules to make a point >> grows less attractive. (I even find myself correcting "less" to >> "fewer" sometimes. Andy-Rooney-ville, here I come.) >> >> I too would like to know if the typesetter story is correct. I >> share the story with my students as possibly apocryphal because it >> helps them remember the US rule. >> >> Beth >> >> >>>>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2009 10:56 PM >>> >>>>> >> >> Good point, DD. >> >> Or, tell the little dears to learn it the logical, reasonable, >> sensible way and then if they ever want to sell an article to the >> New York Times, they'll have three choices. >> >> Slog through the NYT Style Book and make their work comply. >> >> Send it in and hope the NYT copy editor will change it to suit. >> >> If it comes up, defend it as "style and preference". >> >> (You would not believe the number of authors who have defended bad >> grammar to me based on "style and preference", e.g., Stuart Woods >> defending, "Attila had been killed for fifty dollars" (without >> context, Herb). >> >> ~~~~ >> >> DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Because you write to the style book's conventions, or you don't get >> published? >> >> ~~~~ >> >> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Good Grief, Good Grammar, by Dianna Booher, c.1988. >> >> page 133: "Rules about quotation marks used in conjunction with >> commas and periods often bring resistance because they are >> illogical. Never mind, just learn them. Place commas and periods >> inside closing quotation marks -- regardless of meaning." >> >> Nonsense. It is easy, logical, and meaningful to put quotation >> marks where they belong, at both ends of a quotation. Why would >> anyone struggle to teach it otherwise? >> >> .brad.sat.24oct09. >> >> >> >> >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >> and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web > interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and > select "Join or leave the list" > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-1--552783500 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The rule that commas and periods always go inside quotation marks is and has been for decades in the style manual of the US Government Printing Office.  I recall reading it sometime in the mid-seventies.

Ed S

On Oct 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Does the rule change when using quotation marks to designate words as words or for titles? In other words, is it only for actual quotations? Has anyone seen a clear articulation of that?

"The Negro Speaks of Rivers", "Harlem", and "Mother to Son" are frequently anthologized Langston Hughes poems.

"Beat", over the years, has taken on meanings beyond the core meaning of repeatedly striking.

Are those considered correct?

Craig

Beth Young wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
Chiming in late . . .  It's not just the NYT that cares about punctuation; many teachers will object to nonstandard punctuation of " and ,/.

So I tell my students they have choices:

1. Punctuate the "logical" way and they'll probably be fine in Canada, UK, etc. but not in the US for those who know the other rule.  They'll need to think about their punctuation each time.  They'll risk looking uneducated to audiences that know the US rule.

2. Punctuate according to the US rule and they'll be fine for any US audience that knows the rule, and the rule requires less thought (punctuating ./, and " is always the same; they'll only need to think about other punctuation marks).  

I tell them to follow the US rule in my class because "house style" for our comp program = US rules.  They can choose to do whatever they want, though, if they don't mind the consequences.  I myself have been known to deliberately break rules I thought were silly . . . though as I grow older, breaking rules to make a point grows less attractive.  (I even find myself correcting "less" to "fewer" sometimes.  Andy-Rooney-ville, here I come.)

I too would like to know if the typesetter story is correct.  I share the story with my students as possibly apocryphal because it helps them remember the US rule.  

Beth

  
Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 10/24/2009 10:56 PM >>>
        

Good point, DD.
 
Or, tell the little dears to learn it the logical, reasonable, sensible way and then if they ever want to sell an article to the New York Times, they'll have three choices.
 
Slog through the NYT Style Book and make their work comply.
 
Send it in and hope the NYT copy editor will change it to suit.
 
If it comes up, defend it as "style and preference".
 
(You would not believe the number of authors who have defended bad grammar to me based on "style and preference", e.g., Stuart Woods defending, "Attila had been killed for fifty dollars" (without context, Herb).
 
~~~~

DD Farms <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Because you write to the style book's conventions, or you don't get published?
 
~~~~

Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Good Grief, Good Grammar, by Dianna Booher, c.1988.
 
page 133: "Rules about quotation marks used in conjunction with commas and periods often bring resistance because they are illogical. Never mind, just learn them. Place commas and periods inside closing quotation marks -- regardless of meaning."
 
Nonsense. It is easy, logical, and meaningful to put quotation marks where they belong, at both ends of a quotation. Why would anyone struggle to teach it otherwise?
 
.brad.sat.24oct09. 





To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/


= To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ --Apple-Mail-1--552783500--