Conference thebay::joyoflex

     Re .0

>>  What is the correct placement of the period when there is a quoted
>>  word or phrase at the end of a sentence, i.e. should the period be before
>>  of after the closing quote? And why?  

     I was taught that a comma or period goes inside the closing
     quote, but an exclamation point or question mark went inside or
     outside depending on whether it applied to the quotation or the
     entire sentence.  Using this rule, some correct examples are:

          The correct answer is "foo."               <-- yucko
          The other answer, "bar," is incorrect.     <-- looks awful

          How do you spell "bananas"?
          He said, "What time is it?"

     I don't know why; I usually think putting the period or comma
     inside the closing quote is so awful that I just reword the
     sentence to avoid it.  I would prefer:

          The correct answer is "foo".               <-- neato
          She said, "I am leaving now.".             <-- :*)

     Dan

I thought this was done to death in some other note, but I can't 
remember which one.  Anyway, the rule is as in .1.  Nobody likes it, and 
very few people use it, but it's the rule.  Because it is so widely 
ignored, I expect it will wither and die within the next generation or 
two of grammar books.  
						>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .2 (PStJTT):
    
    It was done to death in SOAPBOX.
    
    The rule ais as in .1, even as you said, and I'll add:
    If there is a comma, it goes inside the quote --
          
    "You are a horse's behind," he said.
    
    If there's a colon or semicolon, it goes outside --
    
    He said, "You are a horse's behind"; however, he was upset.
    
    Ain't English grand? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis,  Jr.

Try the command SHOW KEY/FULL PUNCTUATION while reading _this_ conference

        Mike

    Agreeing with .3, I must say I even like the rule in .1 : 
    simple punctuation of comma and period go inside so that the
    quote ends the line. Ignoring the content and looking at the
    appearance typographically, this looks better to me. 
    
    The emotional question mark or exclamation point goes inside or
    outside the quote depending on which portion of the sentence has 
    the feeling associated with it.  Well, at least that is an easy
    way to remember the "rule."
    
    	rmm                    
                              

    re:.1
    
    In one of your examples of correct usages, you wrote:
    
    	�He said, "What time is it?"�
    
    I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. He said no such thing. He did,
    however, ask it. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .6
    
    "He said, 'What time is it?'" is perfectly correct.  It may not be
    in common use, but that does not make it wrong.  There is no rule that
    stipulates one must write "He asked,...?" whenever the speaker utters a
    question.
    
    Bernie  

>    	�He said, "What time is it?"�
>    
>    I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. He said no such thing. He did,
>    however, ask it. :-)

I disagree. That is exactly what he said. The words were "What time is it?"

In effect:

	He asked what the time was.
	
By the way, what was the time? Or doesn't that matter anymore?

	Steve

     Re .-1
	
>>   By the way, what was the time? Or doesn't that matter anymore?

     Didn't you know?  The time is up in the right hand corner of
     the screen!  :-)

     That brings to mind another punctuation question:  does the
     smily [smiley?] face go before the punctuation or after it?

     Dan

    Re .6, et al.:
    
    >He said, "What time is it?"
    
    This is one of those interesting things:  Do you call a spade a
    spade, or an wexcavating tool?  In writing, particularly fiction,
    "said" is a perfectly good word for directly quoted oral communication.
    It allows us to avoid what rapidly turn into verbal Frankenstein's
    monsters, such as:
    
    "I hate you!" she cried.
    "So you say," he taunted.
    "You make me sick," she sneered.
    "Oh, do  tell me more," he mocked.
    "I think you're terrible," she quavered.
    "You don't really _know_ me," he leered.
    "What do you mean," she gasped.
    "You'll find out," he drawled.
    "Oh, won't somebody help me?" she prayed.
    "...Won't somebody help me?" he echoed.  "No."
    
    ... etc.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    "Hasn't this been discussed before?" he noted.
    
    :-)

    "Yes," he replied.
    
    (-:

    I suppose it's a matter of education. My English teachers all
    instructed that "said" was not to be used with a question.
    
    --- jerry

    The Rule? Isn't that what the Order of St Benedict has?
    
    When I worked for OUP we used _Hart_ (I've forgotten the full name, but
    it ran over several lines: something like `Hart's Rules for Typesetters
    and Compositors in the University Press, Oxford'). And Hart didn't give
    separate rules specific to different punctuation marks. I forget the
    details - because there have been two or three house styles that I've
    had to observe since then - but the gist of it was that a punctuation
    mark came inside the quotation marks if it _represented_ a mark
    in the original utterance.  So if the actual utterance was
    
    I am going out and I may be some time. 
    
    the quote would become `"I am going out and I may be some time,"
    he said.' But as there's no comma after the "out", another form
    would be `"I am going out", he said, "and I may be some time."'
    
    What makes this rule hard to impose is the lack of actual
    punctuation in actual utterances (pace Victor Borge). Some
    would say that the speaker probably intended a comma (if not
    something more ponderous) after "out".
    
    Anyway, this rule is one of many house styles. If in the USA
    there's A Rule, fine - for settling bets and the like. But
    I'm glad to note that nobody pays it much heed.
    
    b

    Re .13 (Jerry):
    
    >I suppose it's a matter of education. My English teachers all
    >instructed that "said" was not to be used with a question.
     
    "Was that exactly what they said?" Steve said. ;-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.     

    Re: .13
    
    I think some of my English teachers said the same thing.  Here's
    what some non-English-teachers have to say:
    
    From Charles Dickens's _The Pickwick Papers_, chapter XXIV:
    
    	Mr Pickwick and his followers rose as a man.
    	'What is the meaning of this atrocious intrusion upon
    	my privacy?' said Mr Pickwick.
    	'Who dares apprehend me?' said Mr Tupman.
    	'What do you want here, scoundrels?' said Mr Snodgrass.
    
    
    From H. G. Wells's novel _When the Sleeper Wakes_, Chapter IV:
    
    	Remote but insistent was a clamour of bells and confused sounds,
    	that suggested to his mind the picture of a great number of
    	people shouting together.  Something seemed to fall across the
    	tumult like a door suddenly closed.
    
    	Graham moved his head.  "What does all this mean?" he said
    	slowly.
    
    
    From Raymond Chandler's novel _The Long Goodbye_, chapter 19:
    
    	"Come, come, Mr. Wade.  Let us not be moody.  Your pulse is
    	only slightly faster than normal.  You are weak, but otherwise-"
    
    	"Tejjy," the man on the bed said suddenly, "tell the man that
    	if he knows how I am, the son of a bitch needn't bother to ask
    	me."  He had a nice clear voice, but the tone was bitter.
    
    	"Who is Tejjy?" Dr. Verringer said patiently.
    
    Bernie

    Re .14
    
    Was the quote not 
    
    "I'm going outside now . I may be some time ."
    
    ?
    
    
    John J
    

    Oops. People who know the Capt Oates story (even as imperfectly
    as I do) should beware of letting facts interfere with the example
    I gave (which was true as an example though not as a fact).
    
    I think.

    Well, the title of the note is relevant, though it's not related to .0.
    
    I have just seen the following "word" on Usenet:
    
    
                     studen't
    
    
    
    It appears to be a noun, meaning a person who study's.
    
    Perhaps the writer, when he was supposed to study, studyn't.

    Beautiful. I can even sit through WAF to wait for gem's like that.

    At least they did'nt spell it "stude'nt".
    
    Rien D'avis

You know the sayings .... 
one good apostrophe deserves another ....
the power of positive apostrophes
this little apostrophe of mine, I'm gonna let it shine ...
It's a lesson too late for the learning ... apostrophes ... apostrophes

So, lets all have fun and apos'trop'ize every'thing we can thin'k of
and may'be some of the sch'ool tea'cher's will real'ize that they
arnt do'ing a ver'y good job of tea'ching the u'se of a'pos'troph'ees

Stuart

    And now, from Usenet (rec.humor.funny)
    
    From: [email protected]
    Subject: comma changes, everything
    
    [found in the fortune database on a remote site]
    
    Demonstrating once again the importance of the lowly comma,
    this telegram was sent from a wife to her husband:
    
            NOT GETTING ANY, BETTER COME HOME AT ONCE.

    The expression "dittos" is becoming rather popular these days, thanks
    (I :-( guess) to the Rush Limbaugh fans who call in and fawn; the
    shortest way they've found to express maximal agreement in minimal
    airtime is to say "Dittos!".  (To non-USA noters:  Limbaugh is an
    increasingly popular conservative networked radio talk-show host.)   
    
    To curb this flagrant DittoAbuse, I thought I'd post this little gem
    that I found on the wall of one of the English classrooms where I was
    judging a competitive speech tournament yesterday (Hi E!  Hi Amy! Hi
    Dave!)...                                    (cross-posted from WomanNotes)
    
    
    "The 9 Ages of Man"
    
    A poem in one line to be read aloud
    by F. Emerson Andrews in the Saturday Review
    
    Not Old Enough To Know Better
         "    "    "   "     " 
     "   "    "    "   "
         "    "    "   "
     "   "    " 
         "    "
     "   "  
         "
     " 

    That one's excellent.  Beats the pants off the one I've seen before:
    
    Oh John, let's not park here.
    "    "     "    "   "
    "    "     "    "
    "    "     "
    "    "
    "

    	There is a fairly well known English song, rather along the same
    lines. It is suitable for singing in a bus full of rather drunk rugby
    supporters after their team has just won.
    
    	The lyrics, though simple, tell the poignant tale of a young
    serving girl. There are eight verses in all, but all the verses are 
    the same, except that traditionally on the second verse the final word 
    of the first three lines is hummed, on the third verse it is the final 
    two words of those lines, and so on progressively, until the final 
    verse where all of the first three lines are hummed entirely, and the 
    final line of the last verse is normally shouted rather than sung.
    
    
    	Oh, Sir Jasper do not touch me
    	Oh, Sir Jasper do not touch me
    	Oh, Sir Jasper do not touch me
    	As she lay between the lilly-white sheets with nothing on at all.
    
    	The whole thing is then often repeated after more beer until most
    of the choir cannot remember which words to sing, which to hum, and
    which to shout.

    Sorry this isn't as interesting as .-1 ....., -- "(@)!?
    
    
    
From:	COVERT::daemon "John R. Covert  24-Feb-1992 1258" 25-FEB-1992 12:31:49.40
Subj:	Desperado #3060: Eviscerated Yellow Croaker
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CLOSET::T_PARMENTER
    
	This may be a myth, but apparently DEC announced a grammar checker
	in its Sales Update with the headline

		"VAX GRAMMAR -- First in it's field" 

    Re VAX GRAMMAR (-.1)
    
    	and whilst it was on the Field Test list it was known as:
    
    	GRAMMER CHECKER
             ^
    Nick

    And the latest, just in from Usenet...
    
    "i'll"  -- the opposite of well.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    ... that "i'll" is the opposite of "we'll"?
    
    But seriously folks, it'd be even more amusing to see the whole context
    of this latest outrage.
    
    (interesting that the writer apparently knew not to capitalize the I in
    "i'll" -- perhaps because s/he realized that it wasn't about "I" -- but
    yet still parroted the rest of the common "I'll" pattern... )
    
    O tempora, o more's the pity...
    
    :-)
                           

    Umm, Dan, that might oughta be "O tempera" - this sort of thing can be
    painted with a pretty broad brush, ya know.
    
    -dick

    
    Perhaps Dan's brain is fried from thinking about Japanese competition
    and he meant to say, "O, tempura..."
    
    JP

    Hey John --
    
    (-: Been there, done that, back in Jan '91!! :-)
    
    Dan
    

    
    Dan,
    
    I should have known I didn't think that up by myself...
    
    JP
    

This was sent to me by a friend recently.  From a software problem log.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
TEST SYSTEMS, INC. -Mumble ordinality apparently indefinite but may be infinite

[This update was sent from BILL HOLDEN on 22-NOV-1993 18:20]
[*/SEE Engineering responsible for next action, Problem is undefined]

REQUIRED INFORMATION
====================
Your name: Bill Holden
Your phone number: 603-595-1333
Product Suite: EFT1
Problem priority (1-5, 1 being most critical): 5
Can the customer reproduce the problem [Y/N]: Y
Can you reproduce the problem [Y/N]: Y
Customer's Company name: TEST SYSTEMS, INC.
Problem abstract (80 characters or less):
	Mumble ordinality apparently indefinite but may be infinite.  :)


OPTIONAL INFORMATION
====================

CPU type: SUN Sparc 10
Memory size: 64Mbytes
System disk: 2 GBytes
Other hardware configuration information: Swap space at 209Mb (+64Mb).


PROBLEM STATEMENT:
==================

  EFT1 16.1.1 step 3.
  In the test plan, a series is specified which ends "mumble,
mumble....".  Since there are four periods specified, we have interpreted
this as an elipsis followed by a period to indicate an indefinite (but
finite) number of mumbles.  However, it has occurred to us that the use
of a period may be consistent with designating an infinite (but
countable) number of mumbles.  Furthermore, if an indefinite ordinality
was intended, an additional "mumble" could have been properly added
between the elipsis and the final period (ie, mumble, mumble, ...
mumble.).  Perhaps this alternate form should be used in all cases where
an indefinite (vs. infinite) number of instances is required.   :)


INSTRUCTIONS TO REPRODUCE PROBLEM
=================================

  EFT1 16.1.1 step 3.

	<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<PTT UNIT SEPARATION>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>              

[This update was sent from CERNESE on 23-NOV-1993 08:50]
[*/SEE Engineering responsible for next action, Problem is undefined]
[This update was NOT sent via mail or to any gateway/bridge]

Problem has been reassigned to TOM SMITH

	<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<PTT UNIT SEPARATION>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>              

[This update was sent from SMITH on  8-DEC-1993 11:16]
[Problem submitter responsible for next action, Problem is undefined]

Thank you for your thoughtful and literate PTT. Some clarification is clearly
required.

Your confusion echoes a problem that has vexed philosophers for centuries. Like
some present day primitive tribes, early western civilizations had a counting
system that was limited to the concepts of "one", "two", and "many". We find
evidence of this throughout Western culture. In the Old Testament we find it in
the form of the holy number three, used to indicate divine completeness (as
opposed to the profane number seven that indicates earthly completeness). In
modern times it survives, among other places, in the three dots of the 
ellipsis.

Arab philosophers, pondering the question "What comes before `one'," borrowed
the concept of "zero" from Indian cultures, but were then faced with the
perplexing question of "What comes after `many'?" The result of this
philosophical debate we now know as "infinity". These later developments,
however, were never clearly folded into the philosophical basis for the
ellipsis, which derives from the older and more limited notion of counting and
countability and its descendant concepts of completeness.

In his classic treatise on modern English usage, Fowler[1] uncharacteristically
sidesteps the issue, leaving us only to speculate on what his lucid and always
logical advice might have been. Fortunately, The Chicago Manual of Style[2], in
articles 10.42 through 10.44, is quite explicit on the specific subject of
ellipses at the end of a sentence:

	10.42 Four dots -- a period, followed by three spaced dots -- indicate
	      the omission of (1) the last part of the quoted sentence,
	      (2) the first part of the next sentence, (3) a whole sentence or
	      more, or (4) a whole paragraph or more....

	10.43 When four dots indicate the omission of the end of a sentence,
	      the first dot is the period -- that is, there is no space between
	      it and the preceding word. What precedes an ellipsis indicated by
	      four dots should be a grammatically complete sentence, either as
	      it is quoted or in combination with the text preceding it.
	      Similarly, what follows four dots should also be a sentence. In
	      other words, every succession of words preceding or following
	      four ellipsis points should be functionally a sentence....

	10.44 Three dots -- no period -- are used at the end of a sentence that
	      is deliberately and grammatically incomplete:..."

The usage in question -- "Configure the SMTP and MHS routing tables/files,
mumble, mumble...." -- is, arguably, grammatically complete prior to the dots.
The four dots correctly indicate first that the preceding sentence is complete
and secondly that something is omitted afterward.

By these rules, we can deduce that one should configure the tables and files
and then, as would be expected, mumble exactly twice. Mumble ye not thrice nor
four times, but exactly twice. Neither shall ye mumble once but that ye proceed
then directly to twice. This is made clear by the first dot, which marks the
end of the sentence.

After mumbling, further instructions are omitted, as indicated by the remaining
three dots. Note that there are precisely three remaining dots, three being the
number of divine completeness. Therefore, this is a divine omission, and should
not be questioned. It should be taken as a matter of faith that what has been
omitted is, in fact, complete but cannot be revealed to mere mortals. We can
strive to discover its meaning, but we can never hope to attain perfect
knowledge. These are the mysteries of sendmail and Sun MHS.

We shall include this explanation in the next edition of the COHESIONworX
Theology Guide. We hope this satisfactorily answers your PTT.

______________________
[1] Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Second Edition, Revised
    by Sir Ernest Gowers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965

[2] Editorial Staff of the University of Chicago Press, The Chicago Manual of
    Style, Thirteenth Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982