PSA - Damn it, Kos! Put that punctuation INSIDE the quotes.

I have been silent for too long.  Too long have I stood by while this grave miscarriage of grammatical standards is perpetrated on a daily - nay! hourly - basis.  What am I talking about?  I am talking about "this".  And "this"!  Dare I say "this"?  Well no more.  It is time to put an end to this travesty.

"The following is a Public Service Announcement from the Bureau of Grammar Nazis."

When placing words or phrases inside quotation marks please remember to put any punctuation inside the quotation marks as well.  This means you, too, Kos.

Regarding periods and commas, this is The Rule.  Always place commas and periods inside quotation marks.  No exceptions.

Example:

Wesley Clark just called John McCain an "asshat."

and

"You're an asshat," he said.

This rule generally holds true for all types of terminal punctuation (i.e. question marks and exclamation points).

Example:

When John McCain stood up to speak, General Clark shouted, "You're an asshat!"

Also

McCain snapped back, "Did you just call me an asshat?"

There is an exception to this rule.

Place question marks and exclamation points inside quotation marks if they are part of the quotation. Place question marks and exclamation points outside the quotation marks if they pertain to more than the quotation.

For example.

Didn't you just hear me shout, "You're an asshat"?

and

I will not stand idly by while you call me an "asshat"!

Well, I think that about covers it.

I will now return to my regularly scheduled life, which includes repressing my obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Thank you for your attention.

•  On our next program...

  the "would of, could of, should of" debacle.

  by Hang em High on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:53:02 PM PDT

  •  LOLZ!

    your so smart

    by skipppppp on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:55:33 PM PDT

  •  I just really like your continuous example

    of "asshat". Wait...did I just use correct grammar?

    by Pager on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:56:33 PM PDT

    •  Well, no. (n/t)

      by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:53:33 PM PDT

  •  Could Kos be following the Spanish convention for

    punctuation? I seem to remember that it is the reverse of the English one. HTBC.

    by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:35:20 PM PDT

    •  It's not reversed. Question marks go at

      both end of the sentence. The one at the front is upside down. I think it's so you know it's a question when you start reading it.

      by Jesterfox on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:57:08 PM PDT

    •  You're thinking of British punctuation

      This just shows that the American Revolution didn't go far enough.

      If you follow British punctuation, then you also ought to follow British spelling -- colour, glamour, honour, etc.  One without the other is just a mishmash.

      by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

  •  I would prefere

    a disertation on the use of Elipsis, please.
    The punctuation, not the goddess.

    You can correct my comma use after that.

    by Silent Lurker on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:26:46 PM PDT

    •  Look up "ellipsis" in Wikipedia

      with two l's, if that is why you aren't finding it.  Follow the Chicago Manual of Style rules there.  And if it helps, the plural (which you apparently and wisely prefer, no extra e at the end, to learn) is ellipses.

      And two s's in dissertation.  But you use commas well.  Consider yourself a comma goddess.:-)

      by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:00:27 PM PDT

      •  spelling is next week. nt.

        by Silent Lurker on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:48:37 PM PDT

      •  I use the Gregg Reference Manual

        eighth edition. (William A. Sabin
        I am refering to ellipsis abuse in diaries.

        by Silent Lurker on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:50:28 PM PDT

  •  Please, how do I join the grammar Nazis?

    I spent my vacation reading Barzun, Zinsser, and Strunk and White.  Cover to cover.

    by gzodik on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:53:58 PM PDT

    •  please seek professional help

      when you're done, would you help me edit my comments?

      by unterhausen on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:12:40 PM PDT

•  Hey, I hear ya.

  My diary today conformed to all grammatical standards. At least in the headline.

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:54:10 PM PDT

•  Down with the grammar nazis

  The punctuation inside the quotes rule is among the worst in all of the grammar nazi canon.  Why promote a rule that is not just non-functional, but counterfunctional.

  As as online journalist (my other job) nothing is more frustrating than the standard journalistic conceit of:

  "The day has dawned," said Mr. Smith, "A new day is breaking."

  This makes it impossible to definitely say that the first portion was or was not the end of a sentence, and impossible to determine if there was, or was not anything said between the first clause and the second.  In contrast:

  The day has dawned.  A new day is breaking.

  -- Mr. Smith

  leaves no amiguity and makes for easier reading, if you aren't reading aloud, which literate people rarely do.

  by ohwilleke on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:57:21 PM PDT

  •  Is "amiguity" friendly guity, as compared to

    ambiguity which is operable from either side?

    by MTmofo on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:05:12 PM PDT

    •  You can't edit comments, and

      I didn't learn to type at a young age.

      by ohwilleke on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:08:41 PM PDT

      •  This makes you

        a disorder nazi.  St. Godwin blesses you despite your sin.

        by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:28:33 PM PDT

  •  I don't understand

    Shouldn't it be punctuated:

    "The day has dawned," said Mr. Smith. "A new day is breaking."

    or

    "The day has dawned. A new day is breaking," said Mr. Smith.

    by Warren Terrer on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:03:29 PM PDT

    •  Yes, otherwise it's a run-on sentence (n/t)

      by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:02:11 PM PDT

    •  Read a newspaper, they don't do it that way.

      by ohwilleke on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:22:31 AM PDT

      •  You didn't make that clear

        at all. First you began by criticizing the grammar nazis as though you objected to proper punctuation of quotes, then you referred to the 'journalistic conceit' of punctuation as if you supported proper punctuation. Consequently, I could not understand what point you were trying to make. Frankly, I still don't.

        I have read many a newspaper and I hadn't really noticed how they would punctuate a sentence like that. Perhaps if you provided several examples I could be persuaded that it's some sort of 'journalistic conceit' to punctuate that way. But given your rude command that I should 'read a newspaper' I really don't much care what your original point was anyway.

        by Warren Terrer on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:26:40 AM PDT

        •  Warren,

          You got any ammo left?  I'm out.

          We got another nasty one. Notify the troops.

          by Bulldawg on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 12:16:32 PM PDT

  •  Your example actually has nothing to do

    with the rule discussed here.  It applies either way.

    by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:01:43 PM PDT

    •  If it said

      "The day has dawned.", said Mr. Smith, "A new day is breaking.", at least you would know that there were no trailing omissions at the end of the first clause.

      by ohwilleke on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 09:23:29 AM PDT

      •  Agreed, but never

        ought there be both a period and a comma after a phrase.  Easily solved by doing not as journalists do by not noting omissions with ellipses but instead what historians do, if there is an omission (and if a sentence ended after dawned, while also adding and to avoid a run-on sentence:

        "The day has dawned. . . ," said Mr. Smith, and "a new day is breaking."

        Better yet, of course, to give the quote without interjecting the attribution in the middle:

        "The day has dawned. . . .  A new day is breaking," said Mr. Smith.

        Or, if there were no words omitted:

        "The day has dawned.  A new day is breaking," said Mr. Smith.

        Of course, historians also cite, in detail, how to find their sources to doublecheck for ourselves. :-)

        by Cream City on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 10:52:31 AM PDT

•  your first example

  to me, your first example (Wesley Clark just called John McCain an "asshat.") is actually similar to your exceptions.  i'd write that as -

  Wesley Clark just called John McCain an "asshat".

  you're just quoting the word, so just put the quote marks around the word.  i'm not sure what the technical rules are here, but that's what makes sense to me.

  by drosophilo melanogaster III on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:58:21 PM PDT

  •  Periods go inside the quotes...

    ...even if they weren't part of the original.

    Question marks go outside the quotes, unless they were part of the original.

    by Eric J in MN on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:03:35 PM PDT

    •  no, they don't!

      punctuation is for clarification - not for "neatness".

      punctuation is for delineating, NOT for "decorating"!

      punctuation can be "heard", it is NOT used for "herding".

      any questions, class?

      oh, for further clarification, the "revision" of punctuation "rules" happened in the early 70's to "simplify" matters - NOT for correct grammatical usage.

      i fought that stupidity then and i will fight it now - to the END (of a sentence).

      thank you - leaving the forum now - because THIS subject is one of HIGH annoyance for me!

      by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:12:54 PM PDT

      •  Perhaps in some stylebooks ...

        ...this took place in the '70s. However, at newspapers, putting the period-comma INSIDE the quotation marks was the "rule" as far back as the 1920s. The reason was neither grammatically based or for neatness, but because periods and commas (in the time when lead type was used) often got bumped out of alignment or removed altogether when they were placed outside the quotation marks. So the choice was whether it was better to have

        This sentence is "missing a period"

        Or:

        This sentence is "not missing a period."

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:58:56 PM PDT

        •  ok - i lied - i'm still reading here...

          but this is the explanation that haunted me for years - it made no sense to change the punctuation arbitrarily - since punctuation aids comprehension.

          but the loss of that punctuation in print is a bigger threat to that comprehension than the "rule".

          thanks again for resolving one of those annoying little mysteries of life!  that's why i stick around here - to tap into the collective wealth of knowledge of the folks who post!

          by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:03:51 PM PDT

          •  Another reason to move to Canada

            where your British punctuation style is correct.

            Just another bit of fallout from the American Revolution, long before the punctuation revolution.

            by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:04:40 PM PDT

        •  ok

          but if that's the reason for the rule, then laaame.  we're on the internet now.  on the internet, the only things that keep getting bumped out of alignment or removed altogether are our limits!  i'm going to keep doing it my way.  

          by drosophilo melanogaster III on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:38:25 AM PDT

    •  Why?

      by Bronxist on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:24:36 PM PDT

    •  It is indeed the idiotic rule.

      by ohwilleke on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:29:00 PM PDT

•  Thank you - from the foreigner

  American/English punctuation is confusing - so this is a great help.

  by sara seattle on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:58:33 PM PDT

  •  But I think

    that in British English, it's proper to put the quotations outside the final punctuation, "like this".

    by EB4Dean on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:43:32 PM PDT

    •  That is correct

      Eats, Shoots & Leaves was written by a Brit, and she makes fun of us for insisting on sticking the punctuation inside the quotation marks all the time. I never realized how arbitrary the rule was -- now I try to preserve the sense of the quotation, and place the punctuation accordingly.

      by Simpletonian on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:49:00 PM PDT

•  who whom and whose

  Thanks, I've always had a problem with that. Now, if you could just straighten out the "who" and "whom" grammatical issue for me?.....I love this site I like the tangental side of it.

  by JDWolverton on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:00:26 PM PDT

  •  Who threw the ball to whom?

    The subject is who.  The object is whom.

    by Eric J in MN on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:08:32 PM PDT

    •  No, no, you throw the ball to first base!

      "Then who gets it?"

      "Naturally!"

      :-)

      by turbonium on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:30:06 PM PDT

  •  whom is anachronistic

    I wouldn't worry about it because sane person under the age of 75 is going to expect you to use whom.  

    by unterhausen on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:16:46 PM PDT

•  Shouldn't this one be

  Didn't you just hear me shout, "You're an asshat!!!"?

  I have to admit to having noticed this too and almost posted in the original diary comments, but I didn't want to be "TR'd."

  by toys on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:00:48 PM PDT

•  This is all true of American English

  British English has different rules.  They put puncuation outside of quotation marks.

  by Eric J in MN on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:01:15 PM PDT

  •  Yep. According to "Eats, Shoots

    and Leaves" the British do, indeed, put the punctuation outside of the quotation marks.

    Makes the job of the grammar police a little more difficult when this site has people from all over the world chiming in with their own rules. Turns out one set of rules for grammar does not fit all.

    Although "its" and "it's" is probably universal. Well, except in the Foray galaxy where its* actually opposite.

    asterisk - Forayian usage.

    by mentaldebris on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:46:41 PM PDT

    •  crap, I should have read down farther.

      Like minds, etc.

      by Simpletonian on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:50:11 PM PDT

•  And from the sister bureau--

  The Bureau of Spelling Nazis

  • Your instead of you're
  • And instead of an
  • Loose instead of lose

  And that's about all of that slightly different style of "asshattery" I can think of at the moment.

  Back to my nap...

  by DrSpalding on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:01:26 PM PDT

  •  And I want to congratulate you

    on your proper use of "you're".

    Or should that be "you're."?

    Arrrgggghhhh.

    by DrSpalding on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:03:22 PM PDT

    •  "you're." NT

      NT

      by Eric J in MN on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:05:50 PM PDT

      •  Or should that be "you're"? n/t

        by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:48:43 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention

    could've, not could of
    should've, not should of
    would've, not would of

    by Maggie Mae on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:28:25 PM PDT

•  Out of all the grammar

  errors once can see in this site, I would have to say the one you mention is probably the least that bothers me. In fact none of it bothers me. I really don't care if people confusre its with it's and they're their and there. I am not a moron and I can tell whan the poster intends 100% of the time. And I think we all can.

  Grammar on an blog is really not that big of a deal, people really need to find other stuff to be outrages about...

  by michael1104 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:02:56 PM PDT

  •  Hey, man

    What can I say?  It is raining here.  My one client canceled today.  Normally I'd let this kind of thing slide, but... well, forces conspired against me.

    What really irks me is that Kos himself does it - all the time.  And now I'm beginning to see FPers and other obviously intelligent people doing the same thing.

    Oh well.  I majored in English.  What would you have me do?

    by Hang em High on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:13:25 PM PDT

    •  take a chill pill

      ;-)

      by michael1104 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:16:06 PM PDT

    •  One of my major pet peeves

      (too many years spent copy editing). It's the same as using the "-our" spelling in such words as "favor" or "behavior." People pretending to be British.

      by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:19:07 PM PDT

      •  I use that from time to time

        and I'm not British. I like seeing colours and what not.

        What gets me is "me and my brother" or "my brother and me" as opposed to "my brother and I" which is grammatically correct.

        In fact, today while watching PBS Kids with my son, the cartoon Curious George had the man in the yellow hat hand a friend of his a gift from "George and me" and I almost started screaming at the tv, "It's 'George and I'!"

        by Stand Strong on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:27:30 PM PDT

        •  No, it's "me"

          Try it out-loud, without the "George and":

          "This gift is from I," or "This gift is from me."

          However, "George and I brought this gift."

          by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:29:54 PM PDT

          •  Wait, you're right. My bad.

            Shit...who am I to question an English major?

            It drives me insane, though. You're right, though about saying it back with just one subject.

            "This is from George."
            "This is from me."
            "This is from George and me."

            A trick I always forget or fuck up.

            by Stand Strong on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:32:12 PM PDT

            •  It's because it's the object of a preposition,

              not a subject.

              That's another mistake I've seen and heard Kos make.

              by Donna in Rome on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:06:29 PM PDT

          •  I always thought it was I, if it was in the front

            of a sentence and me if it was at the end.

            John and I went to the restaurant.
            I went to the restaurant.

            (It is right, if it sounds right used alone.)

            Joe didn't go with John and me.
            Joe didn't go with me.

            Kos puts out some excellent writing. Will he develop an inferiority complex, with everyone nit picking his grammar? And what will we do, if he does?:-)

            It may be the better part of wisdom to pick on someone else's grammar.

            Punctuation and grammar are one of my many weak points.

            Errors could have something to do with being on a computer, maybe. I notice I misspell words that I have always known how to spell, after being online awhile.  A person absorbs so much info, while surfing, that their mind may not be able to assimilate it all.

            I have a book by an old philosopher who worried that reading a weekly newspaper was too much strain on the mind and he considered reading so much in a week to be unhealthy.

            by relentless on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:21:28 PM PDT

            •  It isn't sentence order

              but structure. Are you acting or being acted upon? "Me" after a proposition (with, from), "I" when you're doing the action.

              by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:33:53 PM PDT

        •  I learned this from years of my father harping on

          'who's me?'

          As in, "me and John went and played ball today."

          Who's me? Were you there?

          "John and I went and played ball today."

          by Stand Strong on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:30:36 PM PDT

      •  Or consider ...

        they could have grown up in former British colonies -- Singapore, India, Pakistan, the Carribean ...

        by Bronxist on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:28:18 PM PDT

      •  Sorry mcjoan -

        I'm not pretending to be British. I'm Canadian (another former British colony) and we use the "our" in spelling as well.

        What drives me nuts is what I call "adspeak". Lite for light, drive thru for drive through. Aaarrrrghhhhhh.

        by lcbo on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:45:08 PM PDT

        •  Ah, yes

          I should have added, "or are Canadian."

          by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:50:27 PM PDT

      •  went to a British school for four

        years as a child but have had the "-our" spelling beaten out of me ... by people like mcjoan ;-)

        by kindertotenlieder on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:17:56 PM PDT

      •  Is it okay if I use

        "grey" instead of "gray", even though I'm an American. Don't know when I started spelling "grey" this way, but I know it started in childhood.  

        It's probably Tolkien's fault.

        by mentaldebris on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:55:10 PM PDT

      •  My version of that pet peeve

        is the use of the British spelling in "centre". It is common in naming of businesses and places. The spelling it a poor attempt at looking uppity. To me, the effect is to look, well, like an attempt at uppitiness. The word is "Center", dammit. Ditto "Theater".

        by pucklady on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 05:18:50 AM PDT

    •  What can I say?

      I believe you just used a hyphen, instead of a dash.

      What really irks me is that Kos himself does it - all the time.

      by zdog on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:43:05 PM PDT

      •  What?

        No mention about my piss-poor (notice the hyphen) appositive?

        by Hang em High on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:41:25 PM PDT

•  To hell with the Rule!

  One of written English's more nonsensical traditions.

  by jxg on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:03:01 PM PDT

•  i.e.

  As one Grammar Nazi to another, I thought I'd better bring this up.  i.e. stands for "id est," which means, "that is to say."  You use this to explain what you just said, in case you don't think everyone will get it the first time around.

  I think you meant e.g., which translates as "for example."  Or you could have said "including" and avoided the parentheses.

  I'm just saying....

  by frstewart on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:04:54 PM PDT

  •  How do you read 'i.e.' and 'e.g.' out loud?

    I'm part of a reading group, and everybody seems to do it differently when they stumble on one in a text.

    I'll admit, however, that no one has ever used the correct original language---Latin is it?

    by chrississippi on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:17:24 PM PDT

    •  I usually translate to

      "that is" and "for example", but sometimes just repeat the letters themselves ("I-E") since most people know what they mean.  

      Now, who's gonna cover viz. and q.v. and cf.? :-)

      by turbonium on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:35:05 PM PDT

•  This proposal is in error

  if you follow the American Chemical Society style manual.

  If something is inside the quotes, it was present in the original text.  If it was not present in the original text, it should not be inside the quotes.

  That's why we have quotation marks.  So you can tell what was being quoted.

  There are also rules for punctuating conversation in prose, but they treat an independent topic.

  "This is correct!" he said, with his quote inside the punctuation mark because it appeared in the remark.

  by phillies on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:06:23 PM PDT

  •  Which utterly contradicts

    the Chicago Manual of Style, the standard for publishing.

    Yes, indeed, unless you're British, punctuation goes inside the quotes.

    by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:16:25 PM PDT

    •  what's the publishing date on the chi one?

      if i remember correctly, the first time these "rules" were revised occurred around the early 70's with a new webster's collegiate dictionary.

      i had a HUGE fight with one of the lawyers at a major law firm where i was temping and she brought out the new collegiate and showed me.  i countered with some older books of my own, but was aghast at the changes.

      hmmm. gonna do some research into the changes at the hard net (library) and see if i can track the date of the changes down.

      by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:38:31 PM PDT

      •  You have to go back

        pretty far for this not to be the standard for American English. The Chicago edition in front of me is 15th, from a couple of years ago, so I can't help with that.

        by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:41:32 PM PDT

        •  first noticed the changes in the early 70s -

          before that, the quotes and punctuation defined content and context of the sentence.

          the current rules blur the intent of the writer.

          ok - i have to go to work - not running out on this but have been in bed for three days and i HAVE to go out to deliver some jewelry today - now.

          another day, another discussion, i hope!

          by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:55:07 PM PDT

      •  I was taught this in the '50s

        by nuns, who were never wrong.  

        What is making me crazy in very recent CMS manuals is that quotes within bloc (not block) quotes now are to be within double quotation marks.  I can't stand seeing thatt.  And after all those years of learning the hard way ("Sorry, S'ter!  Sorry!") that bloc quotes do not have quotation marks but that quotes within them have single quotation marks. . . .

        by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:11:08 PM PDT

    •  Is Daily Kos a publisher?

      Should it conform to rules established for a typesetting era that technology continues to push toward obsolescence?

      Citing mainstream publishing guidelines strikes me as almost exactly the -wrong- thing to do here.
      

      by other72384 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:12:51 PM PDT

      •  Kind of

        We should probably follow AP style manual here, actually, since we're closer to journalism than standard published.

        See AdamW's comment downthread about professionalism on the blog. He makes good points about what it takes to be taken seriously.

        by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:25:18 PM PDT

  •  Technical people have special needs

    It's difficult to specify in a technical manual that a certain string of characters is indicated without ambiguity. For example, if you want someone to type three strings, each ending with a comma, the following is absolutely necessary:

    Type "abc,", "def,", and "ghi,".

    If you put the commas inside the quotes, then you get

    Type "abc,," "def,," and "ghi,."

    It would be perfectly reasonable to type the following:

    abc,,
    def,,
    ghi,.

    instead of what was intended:

    abc,
    def,
    ghi,

    If we just abandon the confusing American English comma rule in favor of the British English comma rule (outside the quotes) we could be more precise in both grammar and meaning. So much of our communication is technical in nature that it makes sense to modify a rule which interferes with technical communication.

    by pdrap on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:37:32 PM PDT

    •  Special case

      Problem is, then you get the dunderheads who want to type everything, including the quotes.  To avoid ambiguity you almost need a special font, or a convention like putting the text on a line by itself.

      A: Look, just type this:

      cd C:\Windows

      then hit any key.

      Q: Where's the 'Any' key???  I don't see it!

      A: @#%$%!

      by turbonium on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:44:36 PM PDT

•  As Dick Cheney said

  "GO F*ck yourself"!

  :-)

  by pontificator on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:08:22 PM PDT

  •  In that circumstance

    it's incorrect to use all caps for "GO" or to capitalize "F*ck."  Your use of the emoticon, on the other hand, is fine.

    by marykk on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:23:27 PM PDT

  •  And, I believe, in that particular case

    the exclamation mark should be inside the quotations. I imagine he said it with some emphasis.

    by lcbo on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:48:17 PM PDT

  •  Which leads me to ask: "Who is to fuck whom?"/nt

    by mimi on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:18:25 PM PDT

    •  Oooh, good grammar is such a turn-on. . . . (n/t)

      by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 07:26:39 PM PDT

•  I am an *"Asshot"* because I can't

  figure out, after two years, how to make the words bold when I try and write I am an *"asshat."* I wonder if it will work now say's the *"asshat"*? You see, I just previewed this and nothing in the comment came out in Bold letters. I don't know what I am doing wrong, so I always just give up on putting up """" marks because I can't do it when I am trying to also make the sentence or words Bold.  

  by Chamonix on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:08:28 PM PDT

  •  I hesitate to ask,

    but does this mean you have a hot ass?

    by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:51:51 PM PDT

    •  ooooops...heh, asshat...

      you know what I was talkin' about. btw/ I do.

      by Chamonix on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:37:05 PM PDT

      •  Couldn't resist (n/t)

        by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:40:18 PM PDT

  •  You can't do bold or italix in the subject, only

    the body of the comment or diary. Select the word or words you want to have bold and then hit the bold button. Same general principle for italic, etc.

    by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:58:27 PM PDT

    •  italic n/t

      by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:01:50 PM PDT

•  I know that rule

  And I hate it.

  And since it's my site, I get to play by my own rules.

  Other rules I accidentally break. This one, I do it on purpose.

  Another rule I break on purpose -- state abbreviations. Minnesota should be "Minn", not "MN" (which is postal code). I could give a shit about that rule as well.

  by kos on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:14:56 PM PDT

  •  that "rule" is a sloppy correction from the

    seventies - those of us who are OLD know better... the books and dictionaries carry the "correct" use of punctuation, not the "pretty" one...

    now can i have my ratings ability back?

    by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

    •  meant to say the books and dictionaries PRIOR

      to the seventies carry the correct usage for punctuation.

      but, then again, those were the days that grammar was actually taught in school - diagraming sentences, understanding why punctuation was used to separate phrases, etc., into understandable sound.  if one listens closely, you can actually hear commas, colons, and emphasis marks.

      oh well, who am i to talk - i make all matters of equal importance by not using caps... oh well!

      by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:25:47 PM PDT

      •  You mean they don't

        diagram sentences anymore?  I used to love doing that.

        by Maggie Mae on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:33:22 PM PDT

        •  me, too. i think it is a dyslexic thing!

          i LOVED diagraming - seeing words in visual structures.

          nope, to my knowledge, diagraming is a lost art.

          funny, so, it would appear, is communicating! (in general, not here - just an aside!)

          by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:44:06 PM PDT

          •  I went to Catholic school

            The first sentence I had to diagram, in third grade, was:  God is love.  

            I always thought those two (or more) level diagrams of compound, complex sentences came close to doing math problems.  LOL.

            I'm dismayed that they've abandoned the practice.  It was how I learned sentence structure at a young age and to this day, break down sentences, in my mind, when I need to fix something I've written that doesn't seem to make sense, when read aloud. ;-)

            by Maggie Mae on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:40:33 PM PDT

      •  I am fond of semi-colons, and when my kids were

        learning to write, they tended to have some run-on sentences. Not a lot - just a few. Then I realized that their run-on sentences were all ones that I would have punctuated with a semi-colon! They "heard" the semi-colon but hadn't been taught to use it.

        by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:00:47 PM PDT

        •  Too much NCLB, not enough real knowledge

          It wouldn't surprise me a bit if in another generation we completely lose track of symbols like the semi-colon.  While we're at it, let's talk about hyphenated words; they're almost a lost art in today's world.

          by Phoenix Rising on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:03:02 PM PDT

          •  A friend once told me that I have very Victorian

            commas.

            by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:17:51 PM PDT

    •  That typesetter's rule is not just about ...

      ...pretty. It's about losing punctuation.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

      •  thanks, meteor - this has driven me absolutely

        NUTS for years!  i never understood where or why the punctuation suddenly flipped - your explanation makes sense.

        did some typesetting for a printer friend years ago - kerning and layout was a real pain in the butt!  i can see how the extra punctuation would also affect cost of printing.

        ok, NOW i am out of here - REALLY - no, i am NOT obsessed with this site, no - not REALLY!  

        by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:00:58 PM PDT

  •  So when can we expect

    "Crashing the Quotation Marks"?  I tell ya, nothing's sacred anymore ...

    by nom de plume on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:25:01 PM PDT

  •  Hurray! Three cheers for kos!

    by ohwilleke on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:30:25 PM PDT

  •  Oh shit! I just got spanked.

    It hurt, too.

    Why do you hate it?  Just askin.

    by Hang em High on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:32:35 PM PDT

    •  According to Fowler,

      Kos belongs to the "logical" rather than the "conventional" school  of what he calls "inverted commas."  Shocking, no?

      by nom de plume on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

    •  I'll tell you why _I_ hate it: It's illogical.

      I'll follow the "rule" for circumstances where the punctuation is being quoted.  I won't do it when the punctuation is part of what's outside the quotes:

      Why did you say "the Dems will lose"?

      Her first words were "apple", "Daddy", and "filibuster".

      It's probably an algebra thing.  You wouldn't write

      1 - [x + (3y + z]) + 9

      You'd close the parentheses first, then the brackets.

      I'm a language curmudgeon myself: I hate lazy trends that blur meaning (flaunt for flout) and solecisms that display ignorance (I could care less for I couldn't care less).  

      I don't get worked up over arbitrary matters of style and convention, however.  The Brits deviate from us on the use of punctuation outside quote marks, and I'm quite happy to follow their more logical path.

      by turbonium on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:14:28 PM PDT

      •  Ooh! Flout / Flaunt drives me MAD!

        I think I actually heard some fuckwit on NPR mix them up, too. There are some other word pairs like that, not that I can think of them at the moment.

        That sort of abuse of language is SO much worse than moving punctuation around -- it makes me furious when a word loses its meaning through habitual misuse -- it's an erosion of meaning.

        by Simpletonian on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:59:20 PM PDT

        •  Affect/effect

          by pucklady on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 05:25:29 AM PDT

    •  Not spanked!

      Just explained.

      It has something to do with the way my brain processes sentences. Nothing I could ever logically explain.

      by kos on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:20:51 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough. Thank you.

        O/T  Having this exchange with you is actually kind of surreal...

        Who knows when I'll have another opportunity to say this, so I just want to take a moment to say thanks for providing this forum (blog).  Participating in this community has absolutely been a transformative experience for me.  What you have created here is truly remarkable.  Thanks again.

        by Hang em High on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:33:48 PM PDT

  •  Actually, both are correct

    It depends on where it's used.

    Per the AP Style Guide, AP datelines still use the original state abbreviations, not the postal codes. Look at any US-based news story. Unless it is in a major city that most everyone recognizes (such as Boston or Baltimore), there will be a state as well (Tallahassee, Fla.).

    Although lately the AP is not producing much that can be used as a shining example of anything good.

    And I know most of you don't care, but some of us make a living pointing out these things, and we don't think it's stupid to complain about them. It's a language, just like math is a language. So we get upset when people act like it's no big deal to get it wrong.

    In reality, it's as incorrect and annoying as if someone wrote 2+2=5 and insisted it didn't make any difference. A misplaced comma can cost dearly in ways most people could never imagine. Here's a link to a story about a misplaced comma in a contract that cost the company $2.13 million.

    http://www.fftimes.com/...

    by Brooke In Seattle on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:41:19 PM PDT

    •  Yep. But for those of us ...

      ...who went back to school after a few years in the newspaper/magazine biz, it was a real pain being marked down when writing theses because a professor went by the old rules regarding periods and commas.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:45:54 PM PDT

    •  Thank you, thank you, thank you!

      It matters.

      by mcjoan on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:47:27 PM PDT

      •  Only if we want to communicate clearly

        and expeditiously.  I know that you do, and I presume that others here do.  

        Same reasoning applies for agreement on spellings.

        Creative writing is one thing, but creative spelling, creative punctuation, creative syntax, etc., just make communication more difficult or even nigh impossible.

        by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:18:04 PM PDT

    •  I can sometimes motivate students to work on

      these things by comparing punctuation, etc., to windows. If the window is clean, you look through it at what is outside, and don't notice the window. If the window is dirty, your attention is distracted so you look at the window. It's not nannyism - it's how the human perceptual machinery works.

      On the other hand we should all be grateful that we are not writing in the Attic Greek era - all caps, no punctuation whatsoever (not even periods or spaces between words).

      by Wee Mama on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:06:45 PM PDT

    •  Math is absolute

      Language is always evolving.

      So no, it's not like math.

      2+2 always equals "4".

      But Shakespeare looks a lot different than current written English.

      Another "Markos Style Guide" rule -- when talking about Red and Blue states, I always capitalize the colors.

      by kos on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:24:49 PM PDT

      •  uh-oh

        "Different than"?  Gird thyself for mortal combat, Markos!

        by turbonium on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 04:37:48 PM PDT

  •  Pretty funny. You know ...

    ...that the choice you're using on state spellings is the AP rule (and that of most newspapers). The rule regarding periods and commas being INSIDE the quotation marks is ALSO a newspaper rule. This got started at a time when lead type was still used. It was done because often, when a period or comma was set up like this ". or this ", it would be removed by the proofreader (because each is hard to see.

    All the other punctuation marks, however, ! ; : ? should go inside or outside the quotation marks depending on the grammar of the sentence because they are EASY to see by the proofreader.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:44:20 PM PDT

    •  mystery solved! thanks mb! n/t

      by edrie on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:57:13 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely agree on postal abbreviations

    and I tell my students that they belong only on envelopes, not on assignments.

    However, I disagree with you on your preference for British punctuation.  I'm proud to be an Amurrikin.

    by Cream City on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:13:56 PM PDT

•  And don't get me started on

  <snip> when indicating an excerpt from a larger quote.

  The ellipsis ...has served the purpose for centuries. Unlike <snip>, or {snip}, or other variations of that strain, the ellipsis is:
  1. easier to type
  2. easier to read
  3. does not distract from content
  4. is neither pretentious nor ugly

  Thank you.

  by Jim P on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:16:01 PM PDT

  •  Actually, that's ellipses have, isn't it? (n/t)

    by Cream City on