Calling all Punctuation GENIUSES

[tippy]

to settle dispute...

Which is it

"[term, not part of clause]." or "[term]". ?

Similarly,

"[term]," or "[term]", ?

In other words do you enclose commas, periods within quotes when setting a single term in quotes or not?


Thank you in advance for your experteases,

Tippy

[Rob C]

I think the "correct" way is for punctuation to always appear within the quotes. But I don't do that: if the punctuation is PART of the quote, I put it inside; if not, I put it outside. It's only logical. (I think the "correct" way only came about because some typesetter thought it looked nicer--which it does--but it doesn't make any sense otherwise.)

[RBS]

I think the correct way is for the punctuation to always go inside the quotes. To take it even further, I think the period or comma goes inside the bracket.

[bluenoter]

If you live in the United States and want to adhere to the advice of every editorial style guide there is, commas and periods always go inside the quotation marks, even for single terms.

That is not true of other punctuation marks. It's true only of commas and periods.

I have no interest in arguing about that, should I be contradicted. But you can take it to the bank.

[Sergio Zamora]

I'm with Rob. I think I'm right and the dictionary people are wrong. Inside the quotations just doesn't make any sense, so fuck'em.

[tippy]

Thanks, guys. I agree that it looks nicer to enclose them, but makes better sense not to.

[bluenoter]

Tippy, if you decide that correctness is a consideration that outweighs both what looks nicer and what makes better sense, I stand by my answer in #4. And I won't lay my résumé on you, but believe me, I know.

[GoodSpeak]

According to Warriner's English Grammar and Composistion, Chapter 22, p. 507-8:

Commas and periods are always placed inside the quotation marks.

Colons and semi-colons are always placed outside closing quotation marks.

Question marks and exclamation points are placed insisde the closing quotation marks IF the quotation is a question or an exclamation; otherwise, they are placed outside the quotation marks.

FWIW.

TimMc

[jazzy mary]

Tip, is this for a brief? If so, you should follow the "bluebook". See p. 18, P.7

[tippy]

Cool, GoodSpeak. Thanks for looking it up.

Bluenoter, it was "correctness" that I sought and my curiosity has been satisfied. Now I can assert with greater confidence that which I thought to be true. Thanks.


Here's another one though:

When footnoting, if the immediately preceding footnote contains the same source BUT ALSO ANOTHER SOURCE, is it correct to use Ibid.?

Example:

6. Appleby, The Music of Brazil, 119; Béhague, “Villa-Lobos, Heitor;” Wright, Villa-Lobos, 57.
7. Appleby, The Music of Brazil, 119.

or

7. Ibid., 119.

or could you ibid for the Béhague since it's the last entry in the preceding footnote?

Does my question make sense?

[Jimmy Cantiello]

I dont care about no puctuation and thats that

[Brian Olewnick]

I just don't understand what all this has to do with peanut butter.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
I just don't understand what all this has to do with peanut butter.

Is it "Peanut Butter Dammit!" or "Peanut Butter, Dammit!"

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally posted by Sergio Zamora
Is it "Peanut Butter Dammit!" or "Peanut Butter, Dammit!"

It's "Peanut Butter Dammit!" dammit.

[bluenoter]

Tip, your footnoting question makes sense to me. Offhand, I think that you can't use ibid. in that case, but let me look it up and get back to you in a few minutes.

However, I know nothing about legal style for footnoting and don't have a handy place to look that up.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
It's "Peanut Butter Dammit!" dammit.

Wrong, dammit!

[tippy]

The footnoting was for a paper. I searched on the internet for as long I could stand, but found no examples to follow. And in the 11:59 hour turned in as is.

Mary, the punctuation question is for a legal but not a litigation document. I just wanted to splain myself when the atty gets mad at me for changing his incorrect punctuation. hee hee

Brian, you gotta make the donuts to pay for the peanut butter.

[bluenoter]

Edit: I just saw your post about having turned in the paper, Tip, but here's my answer anyway.

Okay, Tip, I was right. This is from the previous edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, but I'm certain that the rule hasn't changed.

17.13 Ibid. (ibidem,"in the same place") refers to a single work cited in the note immediately preceding. It should not be used if more than one work is given in the preceding note. . . .

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by tippy
Cool, GoodSpeak. Thanks for looking it up.

Bluenoter, it was "correctness" that I sought and my curiosity has been satisfied. Now I can assert with greater confidence that which I thought to be true. Thanks.


Here's another one though:

When footnoting, if the immediately preceding footnote contains the same source BUT ALSO ANOTHER SOURCE, is it correct to use Ibid.?

Example:

6. Appleby, The Music of Brazil, 119; Béhague, “Villa-Lobos, Heitor;” Wright, Villa-Lobos, 57.
7. Appleby, The Music of Brazil, 119.

or

7. Ibid., 119.

or could you ibid for the Béhague since it's the last entry in the preceding footnote?

Does my question make sense?

Actually, the correct form is now done as parenthetical references.

In the academic world, we use the MLA format [Modern Language Assn] at the collegiate/graduate level, the APA format [American Phsycological Assn] is favored.

If you would like, I could send you a packet on how to do the MLA format to you via snail-mail.

[RBS]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
It's "Peanut Butter Dammit!" dammit.

No! It's "Peanut Butter, Damn It!"

[Brian Olewnick]

Like a Mets fan knows anything about anything.

[bluenoter]

One more thing, though, Tip: You should use a shortened form (but not "ibid.") for your subsequent reference to the Appleby work. That's a little too complicated for me to get into here, though.

My best overall advice is to spring for whatever style guide(s) you're supposed to use.

[tippy]

Awesome, Blue. (Especially that in spite of my laziness, I was still correct. hee hee)

That's really nice, GS, but I actually am waiting for the newest Chicago Manual. I understand it's almost off the press.

In Utah we always said, "Peanut Butter, Dagnabbit!"

Speaking of Utah, my parents visited me in New York last week for la premiere fois and we had fun in spite of the rain. I was so worried that my dad would HATE New York real bad, but hell no he had the whole neighborhood trained on how he likes his pizza, his coffee and his pastry within 48 hours. We drove up to Niagara for a day of sun which was splendito. There was one navigational mishap that ended in conflict (and thanks to pop's patented honesty I bear freshly minted emotional scars), but overall I had a pretty good time and even miss the rents now that they are gone.

[tippy]

Blue, thanks for your conscientiousness--those were already in shortened form.

[bluenoter]

Duh. I didn't notice that.

Even so, I wonder whether the subsequent Appleby reference should be shorter still, but the truth is that I haven't worked with footnotes for a long, long time, and I don't want to look it up.

[HenryMc]

When to use a comma or a colon
was something i pondered for so long
for probably I was guilty of some abusage
till I got 'The ABC of English Usage'
first published in eighteen ninety four
by the Oxford Press, oh say no more
I use it from day to day, heck
though some may say that it's archaic
and my letters now are oh so formal
that people think that I'm abnormal
but you know what I really hate
It's those that live to punctuate
and criticise nearly every change in nuance
i find these guys a real nuisance
for English itself is an evolving language
to consider it other just causes anguish

[walto]

Blue, could she have used:

Appleby, op. cit.

???

[Sergio Zamora]

Don't listen to Walt's grammar advice. I mean, have you read his book?

Ok, neither have I, but I've been told about the mistakes...mainly by him.

[bluenoter]

Walt--The only "bible" I have handy is the Chicago Manual of Style, which is my favorite style guide anyway, and it chooses not to use "op. cit." at all. However, from its comments on "op. cit.," she couldn't have used it if a different Appleby work was cited previously or if the previous citation of the same work was, like, 95 notes ago.

17.12 . . . To save the reader's nerves, not to mention the editor's, and for greater clarity, the University of Chicago Press does not use either op. cit. or loc. cit. but the short-title form described above.

I really, really don't remember anything about working with footnotes!

[bluenoter]

Sergio, shut up and go read my reply to your "magical realism" post in the Ask DG thread.