English Syntax
[1/7] from: jelinem1:nationwide at: 16-Aug-2000 9:38
>>The following is a literal string that contains two double quotes
>>
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>Sorry, can't resist a correction. As an author, editor, and publisher AND
>programmer, this is one of my pet peeves. Punctuation goes inside the
quote.
>Syntax counts in English as well as REBOL.
>
>--Ralph
>
The English language has changed its grammar rules in the past, based on
popular usage. This is what makes English (American version, at least) a
dynamic
language as opposed to something like French which has a rigid
definition which does not change.
IMO the "period inside the quotes" rule will change, based on popular
usage. I think the only people who write according to the current rule are
authors, editors, and english professors.
- Michael Jelinek
[2/7] from: brian:hawley:bigfoot at: 16-Aug-2000 13:10
Ralph Roberts wrote:
> >The following is a literal string that contains two double quotes
> >
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
>quote. Syntax counts in English as well as REBOL.
>--Ralph
Michael Jelinek wrote:
>The English language has changed its grammar rules in the past, based on
>popular usage. This is what makes English (American version, at least) a
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>authors, editors, and english professors.
>- Michael Jelinek
I gather that the "punctuation outside the quotes" style is already
becoming the norm in some circles, notably in technical writing and
in Great Britain. This practice is referred to as logical quoting *.
In the case above, REBOL is printing a sentence {He said "hi".},
evident from the period at the end, inside the quote marks: {} (in
REBOL syntax, forgive me Ralph). That sentence quotes "He", who
apparently says the word "hi" outside the context of a sentence,
judging by the lack of a period in the quote. If REBOL had printed
{He said "hi."}, it would have indicated a sentence _fragment_ that
contained a quote of the _sentence_ "hi." - a subtle distinction
that is lost with the old quoting style.
Logical quoting goes well with precise writing. If I had used the
old quoting style above the distinctions between the different
sentences above would have been buried in the clutter of commas
added to the various quoted sentences and phrases. We do want to
encourage precision in writing, particularly among programmers,
don't we? Language is a tool for thought, and modern humans must
handle increasingly precise thought in modern culture. Anything
that assists with that can't be all bad. :)
Brian Hawley
* See the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" for more
discussion of the differences between "New" or "Logical" quoting
and the "Old" quoting style.
[3/7] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 16-Aug-2000 8:11
[jelinem1--nationwide--com] wrote:
...[snip]
> IMO the "period inside the quotes" rule will change, based on popular
> usage. I think the only people who write according to the current rule are
> authors, editors, and english professors.
>
Actually, I understand from People Who Should Know that European usage
(in the "officially sanctioned" sense) has already started swinging
toward the more rational rule of:
inside the quotes == text and punctuation being replicated
outside the quotes == text and punctuation not being replicated
The archaic "punctuation inside quotes" rule has NEVER made sense to me,
and makes even less after a few decades of being a geek. Consider the
difference in the sentences:
The Unix/Linux command for removing a file is "rm,"
which corresponds to the MS-DOS command "erase."
The Unix/Linux command for removing a file is "rm",
which corresponds to the MS-DOS command "erase".
Unfortunately, I've had to read technical books edited by tradition
fiends who forced the use of the first style above. The result was,
of course, to render the text nearly useless to anyone who didn't
already know the subject well.
Maybe the Chicago Manual of Style will enter the 21st century soon.
-jn-
[4/7] from: kolla:nvg:ntnu:no at: 16-Aug-2000 22:55
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 [brian--hawley--bigfoot--com] wrote:
> * See the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" for more
> discussion of the differences between "New" or "Logical" quoting
> and the "Old" quoting style.
Well, who cares what the Oxford dictionary says, if the english insists
on using odd quoting (along with odd measuring, driving on the wrong side
of the street, strange clothing and terrible food) so be it. But the rest
of us still use correct quoting in our languages.
Same goes for parantheses btw.
-- kolla
[5/7] from: rebol::techscribe::com at: 16-Aug-2000 14:13
Hi Joel,
you wrote:
>The archaic "punctuation inside quotes" rule has NEVER made sense to me,
>and makes even less after a few decades of being a geek. Consider the
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
>already know the subject well.
>Maybe the Chicago Manual of Style will enter the 21st century soon.
Note that the Chicago Manual of Style - 14th ed. states:
5.12 Quoted words and phrases falling at the end of a sentence can, in the
vast majority of cases, take the terminating period within the closing
quotation mark without confusion or misunderstanding (see also 5.13). In
those rare instances when confusion is likely, the period not only may, but
perhaps should, be placed after the quotation mark.
NOTE the end of the quote: "... the period not only may, but perhaps
SHOULD, be placed AFTER the quotation mark." (uppercased by me.)
5.13 ... The British style is strongly advocated by some American language
experts.
5.86 ... In close textual studies and on similar rare occasions when the
inclusion of a comma may cause confusion, the comma may be placed outside
the quotation mark ...
I believe that using your preferred non-ambiguous punctuation could be
defended based on these quotes.
Take Care,
;- Elan [ : - ) ]
author of REBOL: THE OFFICIAL GUIDE
REBOL Press: The Official Source for REBOL Books
http://www.REBOLpress.com
visit me at http://www.TechScribe.com
[6/7] from: carl:cybercraft at: 18-Aug-2000 10:46
On 17-Aug-00, [brian--hawley--bigfoot--com] wrote:
> * See the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" for more
> discussion of the differences between "New" or "Logical" quoting
> and the "Old" quoting style.
Seems to me the "logical" way to print it would be...
He said "Hi.".
it being a sentence quoted within a sentence...
And how come nobody picked up on the incorrect case? (:
[7/7] from: lance:edusei:s1 at: 22-Aug-2000 11:26
But if languages get too dynamic they fracture and cannot be
understood by others. Standardisation is needed to get cross-
platform compatibility. If anyone knows this surely its computer
people.
Lance.
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
8/16/00 10:08:00 AM, [jelinem1--nationwide--com] wrote:
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted