Logical Punctuation

[MikeDawg]

We really should start using "logical punctuation". The term isn't "logical punctuation 'period'"; it is just "logical punctuation". Putting the period inside of the quotes technically modifies the quoted segment. I don't think that tradition should trump intuition.

Thoughts?

 

[Martin]

Well, technically the contents of the quotation marks is the same regardless of the positioning of the full stop. Below I have two examples of the same quoted sentence:

• "I like chocolate."
• "I like chocolate".

Either way, the sentence is saying that I like chocolate. Therefore, the contents is the same regardless of which I use. However, only one is correct because the placement of the full stop is dependent on context. In this example, I would use the first version because I am quoting someone speaking. However, if I were to use the quotation marks for a different purpose, such as to give individual words or phrases emphasis (for example, in the sentence 'The earthling called it "chocolate".'), then it would be more appropriate to place the full stop outside of the quotation marks because, in the context, the full stop isn't a part of the word/phrase that is being emphasised.

In the case of the example in the OP, it is more appropriate to place the full stop outside of the quotation marks, because you are emphasising the term "logical punctuation" as opposed to someone using it in a sentence.

 

[DM]

The OP has the period placed correctly. Maybe the problem is that nobody knows the rule, so they think they must always put the period inside the quotation marks.

This is similar to how everyone was using "XXXX and me" all the time, so, after being corrected over and over, now everyone uses "XXXX and I" all the time. There are times one is correct, and there are times when the other is. "XXXX and me" replaces "us" in a sentence, whereas "XXXX and I" replaces "we".

There ya go, another example of a proper period. In case you didn't gather, I'm a huge pedant and grammar nerd.

 

[Mowtom]

The OP has the period placed correctly. Maybe the problem is that nobody knows the rule, so they think they must always put the period inside the quotation marks.

I don't know where you live, but here in NYC my English teacher has made it very clear that she expects us to put punctuation inside quotes, and so will other teachers later in life.

 

[piikachuu]

I don't know where you live, but here in NYC my English teacher has made it very clear that she expects us to put punctuation inside quotes, and so will other teachers later in life.

from what i understand this is (mostly) true in american english, but even then not all punctuation always goes inside the quotations - for example, question marks. op is correct in saying that it changes based on whether or not it modifies the quoted segment (? and ! can do that)

edit: a little further research (googling) says that what op is suggesting is more in line with british english - they always place punctuation outside of quotations unless the punctuation appears in the original quoted text

 

[DM]

I don't know where you live, but here in NYC my English teacher has made it very clear that she expects us to put punctuation inside quotes, and so will other teachers later in life.

Well, I don't care if you're in NYC or Singapore, your English teacher is teaching you incorrectly; placing punctuation inside the quotation marks is not always proper.

 

[brightobject]

Or maybe different people use it differently, and you should be conforming to whatever standards apply to whatever and wherever and whenever and to whoever you're writing

 

[DM]

This isn't stylistic. You don't get to choose to do it a certain way just because some people do it incorrectly. If you do, you are literally speaking down to them/their level, and I never condone that.

THIS IS NOT 'NAM, THIS IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THERE ARE RULES

 

[brightobject]

like I said, the rules are different depending on where/what/who/why etc etc

 

[billymills]

Grammar should be set of rules to ensure that meaning is conveyed properly. I can't think of an scenario where moving the quotation marks would change the meaning, so why shouldn't both be acceptable?

 

[DM]

like I said, the rules are different depending on where/what/who/why etc etc

Methinks you misunderstand the definition of "rule".

Grammar should be set of rules to ensure that meaning is conveyed properly. I can't think of an scenario where moving the quotation marks would change the meaning, so why shouldn't both be acceptable?

Because that's laziness. If I walk around all day saying "If I was you, I wouldn't do that," people would understand me perfectly. That doesn't make it right. There was recently a push to change the official spelling of "February", simply because so many people misspelled it. We shouldn't be rewarding ignorance, we should be minimizing it.

 

[billymills]

Because that's laziness. If I walk around all day saying "If I was you, I wouldn't do that," people would understand me perfectly. That doesn't make it right. There was recently a push to change the official spelling of "February", simply because so many people misspelled it. We shouldn't be rewarding ignorance, we should be minimizing it.

What's the difference between that and using archaic language?

 

[brightobject]

Methinks you misunderstand the definition of "rule".



Because that's laziness. If I walk around all day saying "If I was you, I wouldn't do that," people would understand me perfectly. That doesn't make it right. There was recently a push to change the official spelling of "February", simply because so many people misspelled it. We shouldn't be rewarding ignorance, we should be minimizing it.

There are different rules in different places. Is it that difficult to understand?

e.g. that one teacher will not accept a paper with quotations not punctuated in a manner in which they prefer. It's literally that simple.

e.g. X university will accept one type of quotation and Y will accept another.

You're not the ultimate arbiter of which style of quotation is right. IT's something that's both mutable and up to dispute, as well as something that is defined differently depending on your audience.

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

When you use quotations, it is generally to emphasize that you are taking words from somewhere else and putting it into your sentence. I think that anything in quotes should have been a part of the phrase being quoted. So if the phrase doesn't have a period, there should be no period.

For instance I could say:

John's sister said that that he "doesn't like chocolate."; but I think he was referring to what he would call "dark chocolate".


The first had the period inside the quote because the quote that was being used was the end of a complete thought. The second instance was a phrase used by John, taken out of context.

 

[DM]

What's the difference between that and using archaic language?

Using archaic language changes nothing about the rules of grammar and punctuation; those haven't changed in, I dunno, centuries. William Shakespeare put periods and commas where they were supposed to be, just like everyone else.

There are different rules in different places. Is it that difficult to understand?

e.g. that one teacher will not accept a paper with quotations not punctuated in a manner in which they prefer. It's literally that simple.

e.g. X university will accept one type of quotation and Y will accept another.

You're not the ultimate arbiter of which style of quotation is right. IT's something that's both mutable and up to dispute, as well as something that is defined differently depending on your audience.

No, I'm not. Something like this would be: http://www.grammarbook.com/ So, maybe you need to read up, and then tell that teacher and those universities that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THEY PREFER. The English language has rules and structure, from top to bottom, and if a teacher says they prefer you to write something that goes against those rules, they are WRONG. No mutability, no dispute.

John's sister said that that he "doesn't like chocolate."; but I think he was referring to what he would call "dark chocolate".

The first had the period inside the quote because the quote that was being used was the end of a complete thought. The second instance was a phrase used by John, taken out of context.

Your sentence is quite incorrect. Remove the period from the first quotation, change the semi-colon to a comma, then close the second quotation so that it only contains the word "dark". You did correctly close the quotation before the period, though.

 

[JermemGoffdoff]

Your sentence is quite incorrect. Remove the period from the first quotation, change the semi-colon to a comma, then close the second quotation so that it only contains the word "dark". You did correctly close the quotation before the period, though.

I checked. According to The Chicago Manual of Style, American style necessitates period inside quotation. It turns out closing the quotation before the period was incorrect. The truly correct sentence:

John's sister said that he "doesn't like chocolate"; but I think he was referring to what he would call "dark chocolate."

If I was to change the sentence as you would like:

John's sister said that he "doesn't like chocolate," but I think he was referring to what he would call "dark" chocolate.


However the British style, as described in the Oxford Style Manual, serves more similarly to the "logical punctuation" described in the OP. There, only the punctuation that is in the original text is put within the quotation marks, except for when closing a quotation of speech that closes a sentence, in which case the period goes within the quotation:

John's sister said that he 'doesn't like chocolate.', but I think he was referring to what he would call 'dark chocolate'.

In the B. Style it is ok to keep the period from the quotation even if it doesn't close the sentence, as it serves to establish the tone.



I got all of this info from The Chicago Manual of Style

 

[DM]

This is actually the first time I've ever heard of the British rules. They look awkward and awful.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/quotation-marks-with-periods-and-commas?page=all

I guess I was wrong about the periods and commas. Apparently, I have been using a bastardized amalgam of US and English rules.

 

[Minwu]

English is a living language with hundreds of dialects, and even the same person will use different rules in different settings (no punctuation at all on irc, for example). I can see the need for stiff language in lawmaking and such, but not for casual use.



Since it's apparently not a universal rule I'm just gonna say that it makes more sense to me as "logical punctuation".

 

[MikeDawg]

Yeah American rules (punctuation, measurement units, farenheit, etc.) suck in general. :( there is definitely disparity across the world, but America tends to be very particular about doing stupid shit that doesn't make sense.

 

[Darth Manaphy]

I don't know where you live, but here in NYC my English teacher has made it very clear that she expects us to put punctuation inside quotes, and so will other teachers later in life.

Well, your teacher is wrong.

All my (American) English teachers said that if you're not quoting an entire sentence than the period goes outside the quotes.

He said, "These are some dank memes." <= This is correct because what's inside the quotes is effectively a full thought.
He said that the memes he just saw were "dank". <= This is correct because the quotes were used to address an idea/segment of a sentence not a full thought.

 

[brightobject]

this discussion is over bruh, we already talked about how there are various systems of regulating the english language, ure teachers use a different system of grammar/punctuation.

Also nice confirmation bias :/

 

[DiscoDucky]

Or maybe different people use it differently, and you should be conforming to whatever standards apply to whatever and wherever and whenever and to whoever you're writing

"...to whomever..."