# comma after direct speech/quotation: killer," said



## Escritor1968

Hi people. I have a question about how write a comma in a dialogue format.

¨I am sure that she is the killer*,¨ *said Pauly.

is the comma correctly put before the quotation mark?


----------



## cyberpedant

In American English, yes.


----------



## ewie

In British English too


----------



## Wordsmyth

It's not really that black-and-white, at least in BrE usage. There's much debate about punctuation inside or outside quote-marks. Some people say 'always inside', some say 'always outside'; but another established principle (which makes sense to me) is that it depends on whether the punctuation is effectively in the quotation or in the reporting of that quotation.

In your example, Escritor, if I used a comma at all I would put it *after* the quote-mark, to separate what was said (in " ") from the statement that Pauly said it. The comma would represent a pause in the total sentence, not a pause in Pauly's speech.

With the comma inside the quote-marks, it's as though Pauly paused after the word 'killer' — and I'm waiting for Pauly to continue the sentence.

There's an excellent article on the University of Sussex website (scroll down to the last 30-or-so lines, beginning at "Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation marks inside or outside the quotation marks."). The author weighs the pros and cons of the 'logical view' vs 'the conventional view', and gives some amusing examples of how the conventional view can produce bizarre results.

_[Edit]:_ Escritor, I see you're essentially US-based, so I have to add that, in my experience, the 'conventional view' is pretty universally upheld in AmE usage.

Ws


----------



## natkretep

Wordsmyth, the convention for direct speech in BrE as I understand it is always to include it within the inverted commas.

'Yes,' said John. [_or with double quotation marks_]

And this is how I see it printed.


----------



## mplsray

Wikipedia's style manual would call for the comma to be outside the quotation mark, as part of "logical quotation." I mention it here not because Wikipedia's style manual has an elevated status over other style manuals, but only because I expect that there are other style manuals out there which would call for similar punctuation.

The example on that page which applies is the following:

Correct:	Martha said, "Come with me", and they did.

As can be seen with how I punctuated "logical quotation" above, with the period inside the quotation mark, I myself would have written, following the usual American style, 

Martha said, "Come with me," and they did.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Nat, as you say, there's a convention that always includes other punctuation within the inverted commas: that's one school of thought, often called 'conventional style'. It has the advantage(?) that it can be applied automatically, without having to give thought to the actual meaning of the text — and so tends to be preferred by prescriptively-inclined teachers and many style guide authors.  

The other main school of thought is 'logical style', which requires more thought but better represents the true meaning of a text (and in some instances is the _only_ way of correctly representing the true meaning). This is well demonstrated in mplsray's and my links above. It's neither new nor revolutionary: Fowler has long upheld that "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed _according to the sense_".

As to whether the 'conventional style' is predominant in BrE writing, I'm not so sure. I've seen many examples of the 'logical style', and the Wikipedia article on 'logical quotation' states "The prevailing style in the United Kingdom and other non-American locales—called *British style*[13] and *logical quotation*[14][15] —is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks."

Mplsray, thanks for the link. I hadn't realised the Wiki manual proposed logical quotation. I find it refreshing that an actual style manual has broken with convention and moved away from the 'easy option' (just my view, of course!).

Ws


----------



## e2efour

Like natkretep, I have never seen a comma placed after quotation marks in direct speech, which I presume is what Escritor is talking about.

Regarding logical and conventional punctuation, I often switch from one to the other in quotes, since there are often arguments for and against.


----------



## Wordsmyth

.
That's interesting, e2efour. Are you making a distinction between 'direct speech' and other 'quotes'?  

Taking natkretep's example ...
- "Yes*,*" said John. 
Are you saying you would favour convention over logic because it's direct speech?

But what about this one? ...
- "Aim for the highest"*,* a quote from Andrew Carnegie, is my slogan. 
Would you write it like that (logically), or with the comma before the quotation mark? ...
- "Aim for the highest*,*" a quote from Andrew Carnegie, is my slogan. 
The latter seems odd to me, because the comma is not part of Carnegie's sentence; it's one of a pair that brackets the subsequent phrase. Putting the comma in that position effectively makes the closing quote-mark part of the subsequent phrase!

And what about this example? ...
- John said "Yes"*,* but I didn't believe him.
It's direct speech, so would you write it as ...
- John said "Yes*,*" but I didn't believe him. ?
Again that seems odd, The comma is a separation (a pause) between the 'John said ...' clause and the 'but I ..." clause. It's not part of what John said.

I'm not saying all that just to wave the banner of logical punctuation (well, only a bit!), but I'm interested in understanding the issue, if there is one, of the 'direct speech' distinction.

Ws


----------



## e2efour

In direct quotes (e.g. dialogues in fiction), I would be very interested if you could come up with a printed example of something like "Yes", said John.
A style book may recommend something else, but I don't believe the publishers would take any notice.
For example, Carey (in _Mind the Stop_) gives: 'I have no idea', he replied, 'what you are talking about.' However, I find this a poor example, since the natural place for _he replied_ would be at the end of the sentence. Similarly I don'l like 'I have no idea what you are talking about' he replied; 'perhaps you will explain.' I would not use a semi-colon here, but make another sentence. If you like, I am programmed not to put commas after inverted commas (at least in dialogue).

- "Aim for the highest"*,* a quote from Andrew Carnegie, is my slogan. 
I would avoid the issue by writing "Aim for the highest" (a quote from AC) is my slogan (or by using italics instead of the actual quote).

- John said "Yes"*,* but I didn't believe him.
Again I might avoid it, but if forced to punctuate it, I would write: John said "Yes", but I didn't believe him.

When answering questions in this forum and quoting sentences, I am often in two minds where to put commas or periods.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thanks for those comments, e2efour. You're right that most publishers of printed fiction use the conventional style, so I'd be hard put to find an example of logical punctuation in that arena. 





e2efour said:


> _ [...] _A style book may recommend something else, but I don't believe the publishers would take any notice. _ [...] _


 That's also the view of Larry Trask, Professor of Linguistics, in the article I linked earlier: 

_"__I certainly prefer the logical view, and, in a perfect world, I would simply advise you to stick to this view. However, it is a fact that very many people have been taught the conventional view and adhere to it rigorously. Many of these people occupy influential positions — for example, quite a few of them are copy-editors for major publishers. Consequently, if you try to adhere to the logical view, you are likely to encounter a good deal of resistance."_ 

I wonder, if those editors were asked to justify their convention, whether they'd find anything more convincing than "Because it is"! [My exclamation, not theirs, so outside the quotes ;-) ]

Professor Trask also gives another piece of advice that, I'd say, provides a good answer to Escritor's original question: 

"_You may follow your own preference in this matter, so long as you are consistent. If you opt for logical punctuation, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are on the side of the angels, but you should also expect some grim opposition from the other side."_

Ws


----------



## natkretep

> "Aim for the highest"*,* a quote from Andrew Carnegie, is my slogan.


This isn't direct speech, and I'd put the comma after the inverted commas in this example.



> John said "Yes"*,* but I didn't believe him.


The punctuation inside inverted commas pertain only to the reporting clause ('said she', 'they cried out', 'he sobbed'), so the comma would also go outside the inverted commas in this example.

My understanding is that there is a convention for direct speech - and it is reserved for that.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Ah, we seem to be using the term 'direct speech' differently. The definition that I know is that _direct speech_ (or _quoted speech_) reproduces exactly what someone says, keeping exactly the same phrasing (usually set within inverted commas).  Whereas _indirect speech_ (or _reported speech_) reports the content or essence of what someone says without quoting verbatim.

_- Direct:_ John said "Yes, I'll go" — _or_ "Yes, I'll go", said John.
_- Indirect:_ John said that he would go.

I agree that the way I phrased the Carnegie example was (deliberately) pushing the definition of direct speech to (or beyond) the limit. Nonetheless, I've never seen a requirement that direct speech must have a reporting clause such as 'said John'. For me ...

- The sentence « John's statement, "Yes, I'll go", was taken as a commitment » contains direct speech.
- Whereas « John's statement that he would go was taken as a commitment » contains indirect speech.

Whatever, I'm comforted by the thought that the convention might apply only to direct speech used with a reporting clause of the "said John / John said" type, and then only when the reporting clause follows the quoted speech. That does reduce the number of occasions when I'm 'unconventional'.

Ws


----------



## natkretep

Ws, I really talking pure convention, so I'm just describing what I see in publications. And yes, I'm specifically talking about the comma that separates the verbatim quotation and the reporting clause - so this is when the reporting clause comes immediately after the direct speech (as in sentence 2). So everything else falls under the 'logical' method (as in sentence 3).

1 John said, 'Yes, I'll go.'
2 'Yes, I'll go,' John murmured.
3 John said, 'Yes, I'll go', and then he was gone.

I think I would prefer sentence 3 as two sentences, really: _John said, 'Yes, I'll go.' And then he was gone._


----------



## Wordsmyth

Understood, nat. 

... And I bet you were looking for a simple answer, Escritor! 

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

As far as direct speech is concerned, I see the main objective of punctuation as being to replicate the manner of the speech.

Anything that is said, and thus in inverted commas, is to be treated as a single element and to include its intonation and grammatical structure.

A: “Are you going to the match tonight?”
B: “Yes.” said John,[pause comma] “I’m hoping for another win.”
B(i) “Yes …” said John, [pause comma] “but I’m going with David.”
B(ii) “Match?” said John. [pause full stop] “There’s a match on tonight?”
B(iii) ““Are you going to the match tonight?” [could justify a pause comma or full stop outside the inverted commas, even with the question mark] You are asking me that when I have told you that I am going to the hospital to see my wife?!”


----------



## natkretep

Yes, all of those look normal except for B:


> “Yes.” said John, “I’m hoping for another win.”


I don't normally see a full stop in the middle of a sentence.


----------



## moonglow

Great information.

Based upon all the info presented above, I say 'yes' to the following examples in accordance with the 'logical view'.

•The email said, 'The meeting scheduled for March 7th has been cancelled. You will be informed of a new scheduled date shortly'. <—Period outside because not a direct quote uttered by somebody.

•I don't like the sentence 'It ain't possible to do that'. <—Period outside because not a direct quote uttered by somebody.

•The sign said 'Keep off the grass'. <—Period outside because not a direct quote uttered by somebody.

•The sentences 'Be good to yourself', 'Always remain grounded' and 'Money is the root of all evil' are, in essence, truisms.

•The proverbs / adages / sayings 'Discretion is the better part of valor', 'Forewarned is forearmed', and 'All is fair in love and war' are among my favorites.

•'Very', Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm.

Do you espouse my five examples?

Thank you.


----------



## timpeac

"I do" is the reply I give to your offer of espousal.


----------



## moonglow

Thanks, Timpeac! I added a sixth one as you were replying.

Do you espouse this one as well?

•'Very', Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm. (Comma outside quote?)


----------



## moonglow

Timpeac:

Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do".'


I've seen the ending punctuation to this one presented two ways per the logical view.


Is 1 or 2 preferred below, and why? Carefully note the ending punctuation. 


1. Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do".'


2. Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do."'


Thank you.


----------



## Forero

I am surprised no one has mentioned the original reason for putting commas and things inside inverted commas: to keep the reverse metal commas and points from breaking off during printing. In the days of LASER and inkjet printers, I think it is time to eliminate the illogical convention (and QWERTY keyboards too, since they were designed to slow down typists and keep hammers from colliding).


----------



## moonglow

Are these last few correct per BrE?

'Very', Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm. (Comma outside quote?)

Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do".'

I've seen the ending punctuation to this one presented two ways per the logical view.

Is 1 or 2 preferred below, and why? Carefully note the ending punctuation. 

1. Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do".'

2. Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do."'

Thank you.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Forero said:


> I am surprised no one has mentioned the original reason for putting commas and things inside inverted commas: to keep the reverse metal commas and points from breaking off during printing. In the days of LASER and inkjet printers, I think it is time to eliminate the illogical convention (and QUERTY keyboards too, since they were designed to slow down typists and keep hammers from colliding).


 I heartily agree, Forero. Unfortunately convention is sometimes a tough thing to break (even if there was a different convention before that!) — and then there are people who just l-o-o-o-v-e rules (no matter how illogical).

_[PS. Have you had your keyboard apart, and put the U back in the wrong place? ]_


Ws


----------



## natkretep

The BrE convention for reported speech direct speech [_thank you, Wordsmyth_] is to have the punctuation inside the quotation marks.

_'Very,' Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm._

Some form of punctuation is required after the reported part. Oxford Dictionaries explains it thus:



> There should be a comma, full stop, question mark, or exclamation mark at the end of a piece of speech. This is placed inside the closing inverted comma or commas.


In your second sentence, there is actually a full sentence quoted, so I would put the full stop inside.

_Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do." '_


----------



## Wordsmyth

As nat says, there is a convention as described in that Oxford Dictionaries extract, though it refers to direct speech, not reported speech. But I wouldn't say that it's "the BrE convention" (see the discussion on page 1 of this thread).

That convention is generally applied in published printed works, perhaps because it's a simpler rule for sub-editors and typesetters, or just because they've always done it that way (at least since the days of lead-alloy type, judging by Forero's #22).

But it's only one convention. The established alternative of logical quotation (or more broadly, logical punctuation), in which punctuation is placed according to the sense, is upheld by certain usage and style guides, including Fowler's _Modern English Usage_. In my experience, logical punctuation is frequently used in handwritten texts and in typed documents such as letters, memos, brochures and reports.

For reasons I gave in #4, I would write: _"__Very", Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm.

_As for_ Then she said, 'I did it because Henry said, "I don't care what you do." '_, I'm perfectly happy to see the full stop inside the quotation marks, because it's the full stop of Henry's statement. Of course, it could be argued that it's the full stop of her statement, or indeed of the whole sentence, which would justify different positions. 

And if I were to continue the sentence, using some other necessary punctuation (comma, semi-colon, colon) after the present sentence, I would definitely drop that full stop completely: _<< ... care what you do' ", which I considered a weak excuse. >>. _For me, the sequence_ << ... what you do*.' ",* which I considered ... >> _would be very bizarre.

Ws


----------



## timpeac

Wordsmyth said:


> For reasons I gave in #4, I would write: _"__Very", Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm._


I read the start of this thread and thought that there was a misunderstanding between direct and reported speech. But if you would really write that I have to comment. I've never come across this in Britain before. It looks extremely odd to me. I would suggest that

"Very," Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm.

is overwhelmingly more usual. As I say, I'm not aware of ever seeing reported speech (which is different from a quote) any other way.

As a contrast I would write

"Very" was something that Mr Datchery always said without any enthusiasm.

and so anything parenthetical after that would have a comma outside the quotation marks, as in

"Very", and other pause-filling words, were always said by Mr Datchery without any enthusiasm.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I think there is indeed some confusion over direct and reported speech, Tim. From the Oxford Dictionaries article that nat quoted:

In reported speech, the actual words are not usually quoted directly. Usually, they are summarized or paraphrased and there are no special punctuation issues to take into account:
In direct speech, various punctuation conventions are used to separate the quoted words from the rest of the text

That's also how I've always understood the terms.

By that definition, _<< __"Very," Mr Datchery said without any enthusiasm. >>_  is direct speech (wherever you put the comma ).

Reported speech would be: _<<__Mr Datchery said, without any enthusiasm, that it was very good.__ >> _(... or whatever Mr D's "very" actually referred to). 

As for_ "Very," Mr D said ..._ (comma inside) being overwhelmingly more usual, I agree — in books and newspapers it is, probably because a convention arose from the practical problems of printers, and stayed through inertia. This 'conventional punctuation' is also known as_ printers' quotation _or_ typesetters' quotation._ 

However I often see logical quotation used in letters, memos, reports, etc, presumably because people are writing instinctively rather than being constrained by house style guides. That said, an increasing number of institutions are recommending or requiring logical quotation, as this Wiki article shows; (and it makes interesting reading on the whole subject). So give it time and you may start seeing logical quotation become more usual, even in the publishing world.

Ws


----------



## timpeac

Wordsmyth said:


> As for_ "Very," Mr D said ..._ (comma inside) being overwhelmingly more usual, I agree — in books and newspapers it is, probably because a convention arose from the practical problems of printers, and stayed through inertia. This 'conventional punctuation' is also known as_ printers' quotation _or_ typesetters' quotation._


All interesting, but surely this has to be highlighted as the most important salient point. I agree that it does come down to style. In grammatical questions I quite often champion the "unofficial" but more usual/practical/ orally attested etc. form against the conventionally accepted form. Here, however, we can only be talking about convention; and the standard convention I've always seen is with the comma inside. It's absolutely right to discuss the merits of that compared less standard usages in other contexts but, for avoidance of doubt, books - and all books in my experience - put the comma inside.


----------



## natkretep

Thanks, WS, for pointing out my wrong term. I've edited my post. Tim echoes my own position, particularly as someone who reads a fair amount of published material, and I always see the punctuation inside the inverted commas for direct speech in British and British-style publications.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I quite agree with you both about what is the standard form seen in printed material. Just one teensy thing, Tim: I wouldn't say that the point you highlighted is any more important or salient than the rest of the story. Given that _logical quotation_ has certain practical advantages, and is upheld by various recognised sources, I wouldn't like learners here to think that using _typesetters' quotation_ is a rule or an obligation in all writing, nor indeed the only option.

There's an interesting parallel in French usage (I know we're in EO, but this illustrates how the point we're discussing might evolve in English). When French typewriters and typesetting machines were conceived, they had keys for lower-case accented letters, but there was no room for the upper-case equivalents. Consequently, printed books from then on had no accented capitals, purely because of technical printing constraints — and most people came to believe, wrongly, that what appeared in books must be the convention in all writing. In the computer age those constraints no longer exist, and the correct use of accented capitals is being firmly encouraged (by, amongst others, the _Académie Française_), particularly because they can avoid ambiguity. 

The outcome is a huge move away from the previous perceived (but artificial) 'convention': the majority of French printed material I see these days (books, newspapers, magazines, even ads and posters) has accented upper-case letters. So there's every chance that a similar evolution may occur in English _printers' quotation_ 'conventions'. Of course, the English language has no equivalent of the _Académie_, so it's down to ordinary mortals to make the case.

Ws


----------



## PaulQ

Am I missing something? I am actually surprised to see a comma in _"Very," Mr D said. _Did Mr D say that, or did he say "Very." (which seems more likely) in which case it would be _"Very.", Mr D said. _Had it been _"Very?", Mr D said. _there would be no question of omitting the question mark, so why does the full-stop disappear?


----------



## natkretep

He said, 'Very.' By convention, if the reporting clause comes after what was said, the full stop (or colon or semi-colon) converts to a comma. The comma takes the place of the full stop. It doesn't take the place of a question mark though.  There is also a convention of not using the full stop/question mark/exclamation mark together with a comma. Thus:

'Very,' said Mr D.
'Very?' said Mr D.


----------



## Wordsmyth

That's an interesting thought, nat. How does someone say a colon or semi-colon?

Ws


----------



## natkretep

For example:


> Mr A: Wasn't the performance awful?
> Mr D: Very. We were squirming in our seats.


Someone could choose to punctuate Mr D's turn differently, and write


> Mr D: Very: we were squirming in our seats.


or


> Mr D: Very; we were squirming in our seats.


When this is cast in direct speech, we would get something like this for all three versions.

_'Very,' said Mr D. 'We were squirming in our seats.'_


----------



## PaulQ

Wordsmyth said:


> That's an interesting thought, nat. How does someone say a colon or semi-colon?
> 
> Ws


Victor Borge famously did it. "victor borge punctuation marks" as a search term is useful for a certain video site.


----------



## moonglow

Found this interesting from 'The Economist Style Guide':

When a quotation is broken off and resumed after such words as *he said*, ask yourself whether it would naturally have had any punctuation at the point where it is broken off. If the answer is yes, a comma is placed within the quotation marks to represent this. Thus, *“If you'll let me see you home,” he said, “I think I know where we can find a cab.”* The comma after home belongs to the quotation and so comes within the inverted commas, as does the final full stop. 

But if the words to be quoted are continuous, without punctuation at the point where they are broken, the comma should be outside the inverted commas. Thus,* “My bicycle”, she assured him, “awaits me.”

*


----------



## e2efour

What curious advice!

In The Penguin Guide to Punctuation (Trask) the following example is given:
'The only emperor', writes Wallace Stevens, 'is the emperor of ice cream.'

*But*, Trask goes on to say that if you put the comma after the quotation mark, most people will disagree ('you will find most of the world lined up against you.'). He also says 'for some reason this illogical style [i.e. putting the comma before the quotation mark] has become almost universal in British English.'


----------



## moonglow

This could undoubtedly be the greatest thread of all time on this subject. That cinched it for me, e2efour. *If BrE now* *permits it*, I will write:

*• 'The only emperor,' writes Wallace Stevens, 'is the emperor of ice cream.'
• 'My bicycle,' she assured him, 'awaits me.'*

AmE punctuation regarding quote marks has a definitive rule – that's why it's so easy. The rules for the BrE system are all over the place and are quite arbitrary, characterized by a plethora of opinions given by authoritative books and online sources – most of which contradict one another. I live in America and obviously much prefer the 'logical' approach over the 'conventional' method. The 'logical' BrE system needs to be more definitive and regimented, but it won't be. There needs to be more of a 'one size fits all' approach to expunge all existing ambiguity with the rules. Does anybody agree?


----------



## Wordsmyth

natkretep said:


> _[...]_ When this is cast in direct speech, we would get something like this for all three versions.
> 
> _'Very,' said Mr D. 'We were squirming in our seats.'_


I feel very sorry for that noble little colon, being transformed into a two-a-penny comma. I'd probably rescue it by writing that as _"Very: we were squirming in our seats"__, said Mr D. 
_
Thanks for the Victor Borge reference, Paul. I remember seeing it on TV once, but had forgotten all about it.


moonglow said:


> Found this interesting from 'The Economist Style Guide':
> _[...]_
> But if the words to be quoted are continuous, without punctuation at the point where they are broken, the comma should be outside the inverted commas. Thus,* “My bicycle”, she assured him, “awaits me.”
> *


That's just another example of the _logical quotation_ approach, moonglow; (see earlier posts in this thread, particularly #4 to 11). It's a system that's been documented and used for over a century now. The Economist is in line with (in the UK) Fowler's _Modern English Usage_, the University of Aberdeen's style guide, the _MHRA Style Guide_, the University of Sussex _Guide to Punctuation_, etc – and (in the US) _Webster's Third New International Dictionary_, the Linguistic Society of America's _Language_ journal, the _American Bar Association Journal_, etc. The _European Union Style Guide_ also recommends it.


e2efour said:


> What curious advice!
> 
> In The Penguin Guide to Punctuation (Trask) the following example is given:
> 'The only emperor', writes Wallace Stevens, 'is the emperor of ice cream.'
> 
> *But*, Trask goes on to say that if you put the comma after the quotation mark, most people will disagree ('you will find most of the world lined up against you.'). He also says 'for some reason this illogical style [i.e. putting the comma before the quotation mark] has become almost universal in British English.'



Curious advice!? I wouldn't say so, in view of the number of reputable institutions that also give it (the ones I've mentioned above, for starters).

Professor Trask (of _The Penguin Guide to Punctuation_) is also the principal author of the University of Sussex _Guide to Punctuation. _In that, he clearly expresses a preference for 'the logical view':
 ... in a perfect world, I would simply advise you to stick to this view. However, it is a fact that very many people have been taught the conventional view and adhere to it rigorously._[*...*] *...* _quite a few of them are copy-editors for major publishers. Consequently, if you try to adhere to the logical view, you are likely to encounter a good deal of resistance.

He sums up with this advice:
You may follow your own preference in this matter, so long as you are consistent. If you opt for logical punctuation, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are on the side of the angels, but you should also expect some grim opposition from the other side.

So he's not advising against logical quotation; he's just warning that the 'conventional' camp will resist or oppose it. Given that most people aren't writing material that will pass through the hands of editors in publishing houses, I'd say that resistance and opposition generally won't be an issue.


moonglow said:


> _[...]_ AmE punctuation regarding quote marks has a definitive rule – that's why it's so easy. The rules for the BrE system are all over the place and are quite arbitrary.  _[...]_  I live in America and obviously much prefer the 'logical' approach over the 'conventional' method. The 'logical' BrE system needs to be more definitive and regimented, but it won't be. There needs to be more of a 'one size fits all' approach to expunge all existing ambiguity with the rules. Does anybody agree?


Do I agree? Well, sorry, moonglow, but no. First of all, there's no 'AmE system' or 'BrE system'. If you read some of the linked sources earlier in this thread (and look at the examples I've cited in this post), you'll see that the 'conventional' and 'logical' methods are to be found on both sides of the Atlantic. Secondly, style guide recommendations are not definitive language rules: they're just style preferences. And remember, the conventional _typesetters' quotation_ style is predominant in published books and newspapers, but not necessarily in all forms of writing. 

As for _logical quotation_ being 'all over the place and quite arbitrary', it really isn't. The two methods are actually principles, not rules; but if it makes you happy to think in terms of rules, you could express them this way:

- In 'conventional' quotation, any comma or full stop adjacent to a closing quotation mark always goes before the quotation mark, with no consideration for the normal function of such punctuation. But an adjacent colon or semi-colon is transformed into a comma, which is placed before the closing quotation mark. However, question marks and exclamation marks do not follow the same principle: they are placed according to the sense of the sentence (inside the quote if genuinely part of the quote, but outside if part of the surrounding sentence), following the principle of 'logical quotation'. 

- In 'logical' quotation, any punctuation mark adjacent to a closing quotation mark goes before the quotation mark if it's part of the actual quotation, and after the quotation mark if it's part of the surrounding sentence.

I know which one I find easier to understand and use.

By the way, when you said that you "obviously much prefer the 'logical' approach over the 'conventional' method", did you mean the opposite? — Or was that a subconscious slip that might hint at where your real feelings lie?  (Only kidding).

Ws


----------



## moonglow

Wow! What a great, detailed reply. Thanks so much, Wordsmyth. No Freudian slip here. I'm pro 'logical' punctuation, 200 percent. Here in the US, you'll sometimes see successive Latin abbreviations within quote marks like this: The abbreviations "a.m.," "p.m.," "etc.," "et al.," ... . How horrendous-looking is that?! Yuck! That's an abomination! That's one of the reasons why I tergiversated (LOL).


----------



## moonglow

From _Grammar for Grown-Ups_ by Katherine Fry, Rowena Kirton

These make sense (really, they do). However, there is one time when standard practice rather than sense takes precedence.

'The author,' the editor said in the meeting, 'is refusing to do any rewrites.' (Correct.)

'The author', the editor said in the meeting, 'is refusing to do any rewrites.' (Incorrect.)

The reasoning behind the second example is that the quoted material does not include a comma after 'author' – the speech is 'The author is refusing to do any rewrites', not 'The author, is refusing to do any rewrites'. _But_ the standard rule nowadays for this type of quote is always to follow the first example. Some people have a hissy fit about this – and it's understandable – but for conventional, aesthetical, stylistic reasons, that's the rule now.


----------



## e2efour

Here is some advice from the University of Hull (see http://slb-ltsu.hull.ac.uk/awe/index.php?title=Punctuation_of_direct_speech).

<<
When the reporting clause interrupts the reported speech, there is always a comma before the reporting clause… 
If the reporting clause breaks a sentence of the speech, then it is a comma - and the first letter of the resumed speech is 
in lower case, as in
"I think," he said, "that it's going to be a fine day for the match." (_This is one sentence broken by the reporting clause_.)
"I don't," she protested. "There are black clouds already: it looks like rain to me." (_She uttered two sentences_.)
>>

​ This advice, of course, simply reflects standard practice.
It would be of interest if anyone here who is a copy editor would be prepared to change the above to “I think”, he said, “that…match.”


----------



## Loob

I vote with Wordsmyth and Trask!





e2efour said:


> ...
> It would be of interest if anyone here who is a copy editor would be prepared to change the above to “I think”, he said, “that…match.”


Presumably a copy editor for _The Economist_ would, e2.


----------



## PaulQ

I’m finding this most enlightening but unnatural. Wordsmyth has informed us that the applicable conventions stem from the convenience of type-setters, which, though earlier understandable, is putting the cart before the horse.

The fully-rigged, ocean-going high-priests of any convention will argue dogma with each other so as to retain and strengthen their authority but this seems to be at the expense of the natural representation of first, thought, then speech.

I wish I could find it now, but in an earlier discussion of this topic, I seem to recall one of the high-priests sensibly suggesting that no commas were required in a sentence such as:

He said “It looks like rain again.” – the logic[1] being that “It looks like rain again.” is, to all intents and purposes, the object of “He said”. We would not punctuate “I ate, the cake.”

This then accounts for the commas outside the quotation marks in a sentence such as

"I think", he said, "that it's going to be a fine day for the match." As “he said” is in parenthesis.

Don’t believe me? Try the classic:

The teacher said John was a fool,
“The teacher”, said John, “was a fool.”



[1] and that is what conventions lack and why they are called ‘conventions’.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> ... I wish I could find it now ...


Maybe you'd be able to find it via the comma portal, Paul? (See portal sections 18.1, 18.2, 18.3.)


----------



## moonglow

Thank you very much!


----------



## moonglow

Lastly, I think the periods in the following examples go outside the quotes at the end in *BrE* because these are not direct, quoted material spoken by somebody.

*Rewrite the sentence as 'A group of students were in attendance'.

I adhere to the old adage 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

The email said 'It is required that you bring your laptops to Friday's meeting'.

The sign said 'Shoplifters will be prosecuted'.
*
*The speech is 'The author is refusing to do any rewrites', not 'The author, is refusing to do any rewrites'.*

Do you agree with all punctuation – yay or nay?


----------



## moonglow

I think these are correct.


----------



## Wordsmyth

moonglow said:


> Lastly, I think the periods in the following examples go outside the quotes at the end in *BrE* _[...] _


 As I said in #40 ...


Wordsmyth said:


> [...]  there's no 'AmE system' or 'BrE system'. If you read some of the linked sources earlier in this thread (and look at the examples I've cited in this post), you'll see that the 'conventional' and 'logical' methods are to be found on both sides of the Atlantic. _[...]_



Ws


----------



## moonglow

Inside or out in BE? I forgot that I asked this over a month ago.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Well, nothing's changed in the last month. There's still no universal 'BE' method.

I would write those sentences (in your #48) as you have: full stops outside. But that doesn't mean all BE speakers would.

Ws


----------



## moonglow

Thank you.


----------



## JackWracker

Stop, stop, stop ... I haven't read all the posts but you are heading towards anarchy. There is a British English convention, it's clear and simple and you can find it in New Hart's Rules. If you are going to use English professionally you have to follow the rules or people will not accept your work because proofreading becomes too expensive. Organisations have style guides, you could follow those. 'In the absence of a style guide stick to the rules,' Bingo said.
'Why should I?' asked the maverick.
'Because if you don't you'll lose your job. "Better to be safe than sorry",' Bingo added, with a sage nod of his head.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Welcome to the forum, JackWracker.

Maybe you _should_ read all the posts. You might then see that it's not a question of anarchy, but of two opposing schools of thought, each of which is well established and widely supported. (See earlier in the thread.) There is indeed a convention, but it's not a British English convention. It's a convention that is used by people who prefer it, in British English and American English and many other kinds of English. There are others who, again in any variant of English, prefer logical punctuation. The former is more conventionally 'correct', the latter more logically 'correct'. 

New Hart's Rules is only a style guide amongst many — and it's one that has its origins in the historical requirements and constraints of the printing industry, not of writing styles in general. (See earlier in the thread.) I've no idea who Bingo is, but I doubt that his opinion carries any more 'official' weight than that of the late Mr Hart or his present-day acolytes. 

Ws


----------

