![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Grammar Rant of No Particular Importance.
Mar. 13th, 2007 09:58 pmI would like to take a break from the issue of what to name the child who shall shortly spring from my loins and speak of other weighty matters.
Putting punctuation inside a quotation when it clearly doesn't belong? It drives me batty.
Here's what it should be. If the part being quoted contains a comma, put it there. If you're quoting something and it needs a comma to fit into your sentence, put it outside the quotation.
Example.
"I think I will write a program for that," Dorothy said. And that is just fine because she said it, and it's part of the sentence. It's what's being quoted... hence that whole bit about the quotation marks. (Amazing how complex this grammar thing is, huh?) Yay, Dorothy!
If you call the program with a parameter of "BOB," then Bob will actually appear in your living room! NO. That is awful. It's actually a pretty good example, now that I think about it, because what it makes pretty clear why it just doesn't work. Also, it's a geek example and I appreciate that. See? The parameter should not be BOB, with a comma because that won't work, but that's exactly what it tells you to use. It should clearly be BOB. (Bolding is to avoid unnecessary confusion of styles in order to show the point without distraction.)
I KNOW that it's a matter of style, and perhaps I am actually living in the wrong country if I want to write that way. I am also well aware that it drives other people crazy to see it done this way, but look! It makes sense! It's logical! Why would I do something that is illogical and less clear when the point of grammar is to help make your meaning clear? It seems to be the American way to do it like this, of all the absurd things. Why did we, as a nation, get in the habit of changing something logical to make it illogical, solely for the purpose of it being different? IT MAKES NO SENSE. I am not quoting that comma, so I don't want to put it there. It sounds awful and weird and in the example above, it's just plain wrong*.
So, basically, it stings a bit when one's boss asks one to research the matter once and for all after it came up (again) in a meeting yesterday, and so one therefore has to dutifully report that American English, and officially as per the Chicago Manual of Style, is all about the punctuation inside the quotation marks. It is completely wrong, and yet it is the official rule to do it that way. I should have lied. ;)
What interests me is that this is the way I learned it in school. It's also the way the other four people in the group learned it (except for the manager who requested that I research it.) Why? I learned it here In the US in my overachiever English classes. I have no intention of changing my own personal style, and I guess at work, I will take advantage of my own personal favorite grammar rule--when in doubt, rephrase. I just don't understand what kind of crack was being passed around when someone came up with this. AND WHY DO THEY NEVER SHARE THE CRACK WITH ME?
*The rule actually has a special note about computer lingo, which happens to be the context in which it came up to begin with. The contested sentence also referred to a parameter. It recommends that one either use the alternate style (ie, the CORRECT way) or to set the word in a different font instead of using quotation marks. Which, doesn't that prove right there that the "real" rule in the US is wrong, since it acknowledges that putting the punctuation inside the quotation marks makes statements incorrect?
Putting punctuation inside a quotation when it clearly doesn't belong? It drives me batty.
Here's what it should be. If the part being quoted contains a comma, put it there. If you're quoting something and it needs a comma to fit into your sentence, put it outside the quotation.
Example.
"I think I will write a program for that," Dorothy said. And that is just fine because she said it, and it's part of the sentence. It's what's being quoted... hence that whole bit about the quotation marks. (Amazing how complex this grammar thing is, huh?) Yay, Dorothy!
If you call the program with a parameter of "BOB," then Bob will actually appear in your living room! NO. That is awful. It's actually a pretty good example, now that I think about it, because what it makes pretty clear why it just doesn't work. Also, it's a geek example and I appreciate that. See? The parameter should not be BOB, with a comma because that won't work, but that's exactly what it tells you to use. It should clearly be BOB. (Bolding is to avoid unnecessary confusion of styles in order to show the point without distraction.)
I KNOW that it's a matter of style, and perhaps I am actually living in the wrong country if I want to write that way. I am also well aware that it drives other people crazy to see it done this way, but look! It makes sense! It's logical! Why would I do something that is illogical and less clear when the point of grammar is to help make your meaning clear? It seems to be the American way to do it like this, of all the absurd things. Why did we, as a nation, get in the habit of changing something logical to make it illogical, solely for the purpose of it being different? IT MAKES NO SENSE. I am not quoting that comma, so I don't want to put it there. It sounds awful and weird and in the example above, it's just plain wrong*.
So, basically, it stings a bit when one's boss asks one to research the matter once and for all after it came up (again) in a meeting yesterday, and so one therefore has to dutifully report that American English, and officially as per the Chicago Manual of Style, is all about the punctuation inside the quotation marks. It is completely wrong, and yet it is the official rule to do it that way. I should have lied. ;)
What interests me is that this is the way I learned it in school. It's also the way the other four people in the group learned it (except for the manager who requested that I research it.) Why? I learned it here In the US in my overachiever English classes. I have no intention of changing my own personal style, and I guess at work, I will take advantage of my own personal favorite grammar rule--when in doubt, rephrase. I just don't understand what kind of crack was being passed around when someone came up with this. AND WHY DO THEY NEVER SHARE THE CRACK WITH ME?
*The rule actually has a special note about computer lingo, which happens to be the context in which it came up to begin with. The contested sentence also referred to a parameter. It recommends that one either use the alternate style (ie, the CORRECT way) or to set the word in a different font instead of using quotation marks. Which, doesn't that prove right there that the "real" rule in the US is wrong, since it acknowledges that putting the punctuation inside the quotation marks makes statements incorrect?
