RoR: Forum

Linz is absolutely correct about the punctuation issue. But I'm still trying to understand why it is that the Americans put a period after Dr. while those who practice the Queen's English insist on leaving the period off as in "Dr Diabolical Dialectical." (Note the period inside the quotation mark.)

Post 1

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:24pm

Oh dear!!

I've just emailed Linz regarding the punctuation thing - to explain why you are both wrong ;-) Putting the periods and comas outside the quotation marks, far from being a "modern barbaric obscenity" is the accepted practice in England and at least some other English-speaking countries, and has been in use far longer than the American system of putting them inside. The older, English system is more logical in that it follows the usual logic with punctuation marks. Further the (relatively) modern American innovation was the result of problems with a now obsolete printing technology.

If SOLO is willing to tolerate Mr Stolyarov's linguistic innovations it should surely be able to tolerate either of the above accepted systems.

MH

Post 2

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:29pm

Queen's English says you end an abbreviation with a period only if its last letter is not the last letter of the actual word or words. For example, "etc.." "Doctor," "Mister," etc., don't have periods because they *do* end with the last letter of the full word. At least, that's what I *think* I remember from my school-days! :-)

Post 3

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:30pm

You are wrong. The Chicago Manual of Style says so.

Oops. Chicago is in America.

Well. You're still wrong. :)

[Uh... that was meant as an answer to DDD Jr., not to Linz... though in this instance, I shall not be going to the barricades over a period after Dr. ]

(Edited by sciabarra on 5/13, 1:32pm)

Post 4

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:33pm

You will find that the webpage I linked above is also American, and says the same thing that I have :-p

Post 5

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:33pm

I am curious: what difference does it make whether the punctuation is within the quotes or not? How often does it alter the meaning of the statement?

coaltontrail

Post 6

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:47pm

I have been a professional copy editor for a long time, so I do have a few comments.

To coalton trail: I can't think of any cases in which it alters the meaning, but the British practice is more logical in that everything inside the quotes is part of what was lifted from elsewhere; so the position of the punctuation might often be more in harmony with the meaning anyway.

Sometimes I have wished we could in one swoop adopt the British style (including the use of single quotes ahead of double, which is a bit less cluttered), due to its logic. However, short of a dictatorial decree this can't happen.

That said, I am comfortable with the North American style and in fact I like it. (There's more convolutions for Lindsay to puzzle over.)

Post 7

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:05pm

Thank you Mr. Rawlings. With opinions falling on both sides, instead of forcing everyone to accept one convention, wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask the authors to follow a consistent convention within a document?

On a related topic, what are your thoughts on the use of active voice in technical documents. I am referring to technical (engineering/mathematics/physics etc.) articles written in first person ('we', 'our'...). Most American journals in my field of interest (electromagnetic theory) accept both forms, although the active voice is more common. But some British journals insist on passive voice.

I prefer to use the first person style because it can nearly reflect my thought process, although sometimes the definition-lemma-theorem-proof style can completely hide intermediate stages of reasoning.

coaltontrail

Post 8

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:44pm

To editors,

After reading this thread I have to formally apologize. I have just submitted an article that violates every norm suggested here (punctuation outside of quotes, single quotes before - in lieu of - double quotes; you name it!).

I hereby sanction all minor editorial changes to said article (ie. changes in punctuation) that leave my points intact. Please contact me if the changes desired are so severe that they would alter the message or the points which were covered.

Again, I want to apologize and express gratitude for any 'polishing' (oops, I think that I've just done it again!) that is done to make my article more professional.

Part-humor: You guys have always helped to make me such an outstanding human being - such a wonderful exemplar of human rationality and excellence. I can't thank you enough! Don't take this the wrong way. If you love excellence as I do, you'll see this is not an altruistic issue of any sacrifice for my betterment (your very existence inspires me).

Ed

Post 9

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:08am

With opinions falling on both sides, instead of forcing everyone to accept one convention, wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask the authors to follow a consistent convention within a document?

I am in favor of imposing a style because the result then looks better because it is consistent. And it must be the North American style because this is North America.

Even if I had a choice, I would go for the North American style, because it is established here and I do like it in many ways. I say only that if we could switch over all at once, I would not be averse.

Yes, I think active voice is much better, and in fact I would push for first-person singular if that was really the case. I sincerely hope "we" does not reflect your thought processes!

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/14, 6:25am)

Post 10

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:25am

I am in favor of imposing a style because the result then looks better because it is consistent. And it must be the North American style because this is North America.

Rodney,

SOLO has a substantial number of contributors from outside North America, notably New Zealand and the UK. If you wish to impose the American style on all SOLOists then consider that the US spells a number of words differently to the rest of the English speaking world (including New Zealand, where SOLO originated). Should the policy extend to this also?

By the way, regarding it being the "North American" style - correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that Canada uses the far more logical British system. The US switched to their present system for reasons discussed above.

MH

Post 11

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:34am

No, Canada does not use the British system; we do use some elements of British spelling, but the position of punctuation and the use of double quotation marks are the same as in the United States.

I have not researched the issue, but it is my impression that even Canada's use of British spelling was not a natural development but the result of governmental encouragement.

Yes, I would extend the style to include spelling as well, but I do not consider this issue to be as important as that of punctuation positioning and double quotes.

Post 12

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:46am

I just want to say, as a computer programmer who's familiar with formal "language" definitions, I have always thought that commas and periods inside a quote when they are not actually part of the quote are an abomination! It makes no sense to me. The quote is an atomic element in the sentence. The punctuation is part of the construction of the sentence. Why munge together what is logically separate? I'm not sure if I'm ready to replace "ph"'s with "f"'s quite yet, but I will put my commas and periods outside of the quotes until you pry this keyboard out of my cold, dead fingers!

Post 13

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:17pm

Jeff & others,

Warning: I really have been sincere (re: this thread) up until now ...

Your "cold, dead fingers!," I love it! Hey?! Was I supposed to "commatize" the quote HERE (where punctuation had previously existed ... axiomatic concept: "punctuation exists")?

Also Jeff, I see that you explicitly sanction the triple quotation (e.g. "..."'s")! I'm definitely unsure (though not necessarily "surely indefinite") about the "triple-Q."

For my own benefit and others ... might we have a/some thread(s) on "writing well," perhaps in a format similar to the "Q&A"s that already exist (in case you didn't notice: I AM being serious with the request behind my "encrypted" jargon here!)?

In sum then, there are 2 take-away points above:

1. I would love to have an ongoing thread here on "writing well" (I desire quite a bit more expertise than is currently in my possession).

2. I can't be trusted to be entirely serious about issues (especially ones that are still somewhat threatening to me). However, I would like to be (indeed, will work damn hard to be) known as a very "sincere" man overall, whether I'm being "serious" regarding an issue, or not.

Post 14

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 3:32pm

You're all missing the point. Commas & periods will go *inside* quote marks because that is what *I* am used to.

Linz

:-)

Post 15

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 3:45pm

Rodney - Thanks for clarifying the situation in Canada. I had read a number of sources suggesting that Canada generally followed British practice. Apologies.

Linz - This is surely the first time I have ever known an Objectivist to insist on the less logical and less consistent option ;-) Can SOLO not simply show its cosmopolitanism and allow reasonable variations between authors?

MH

Post 16

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 5:00pm

Spelling and typography develop somewhat spontaneously and anonymously, and they embody answers to many problems and considerations. Decisions in one area affect those in others, with mutual adjustments. So that if one were to legislate a change, more problems would crop up. That is one reason I am opposed to wholesale "spelling reform."

Re the matter of logic, my thinking is different. It is one thing to be logical, and another to insist on applying logic in a special way in a certain context. To be completely logical in that way, one would also want to put a space before the period at the end of a sentence--indeed, before semicolons and colons as well--since the mark separates sentences or words, and not letters. But do we really wish to make such a change and many others? Are we illogical if the answer is no?

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/14, 5:37pm)

Post 17

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:17pm

MH: "Linz - This is surely the first time I have ever known an Objectivist to insist on the less logical and less consistent option ;-) Can SOLO not simply show its cosmopolitanism and allow reasonable variations between authors?"

I'll consider this - if I'm showered with humungous sums of money & oceans of red wine.

Linz

:-)

Post 18

Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 12:36am

How about $2.37 and some stale backwash in a Budweiser bottle?

Post 19

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:57pm