A reader asks:
I’m trying to finalize a “stylebook” for briefs our office files and am stuck on one thing and am asking around for views of people who might have an opinion to share. Given your interesting takes on language and usage, I’d love to get your thoughts. The issue is whether to use the American or British rule on the placement of added punctuation inside or outside a close quotation mark. (American rule = periods and commas inside the quotes, even if you are adding them to the quoted material; British rule: only quoted material goes inside the quote marks.)I personally think the British rule is more sensible and may be especially appropriate for use in briefs where accuracy is especially important, but had been preparing to use the American rule for our briefs because I thought that was the universally-accepted practice here. But then I ran into Judge Easterbrook’s opinion in the McDonald case, and noticed he seems to use the British rule. I checked a few of his other opinions and it seems to be his practice. This suggests the time might be right to switch to the more logical rule, but I’m still tempted to go with the majority. (I am pretty sure the Supreme Court and DOJ use the American rule, and haven’t seen any other courts or judges do otherwise. Interestingly, however, in our office, a sizeable minority of draft briefs I see use the British rule until I force them to change.)
So, I put it to you: if you were setting a rule for [a large government] office, which rule would you use?
Here’s what I said in response: I see the value of the British rule, both because of the elegance of its logic, and because it may be more precise in some situations (if people know that one is indeed consistently following the British rule). But my sense is that the American rule remains vastly more common in America, and is also more aesthetically pleasing, partly because it reduces what strikes me as ugly white space, but partly because it is indeed what people are used to.
I would draw a firm line against moving other punctuation, such as colons or semicolons, to before the closing quotation mark (except, of course, when it’s part of what’s being quoted, such as “He asked, ‘What did you say?’”). There, usage is more mixed, and I see no reason to move the punctuation — plus I am personally annoyed when it is moved, though that might just be me.
Note, of course, that this is a question of what is better stylistically, aesthetically, and functionally, not what is “correct.” Certainly the American rule, much as it offends some people’s sense of linguistic logic, is correct in American usage, because it is usage and not logic that defines linguistic correctness.
CJColucci says:
The Brits drive on the wrong side of the road, too, but as long as everyone is consistent about it, traffic moves along. Just pick one, any one, and stick to it.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 3:53 pmGMUSL '07 Alum says:
You can add most (or is it all?) programming language to the adherents of the “British Rule”.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 3:53 pmDavid Drake says:
I’ve always used the American rule, because of the appearance.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:12 pmJackOfClubs says:
British rule, all the way.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:25 pmJust Dropping By says:
I was raised in Canada and was taught the British rule. I still use it in personal writing, but I use the American rule in motions, briefs, etc. since I assume most judges and clerks will be following the American rule.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:25 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I read somewhere that the American rule is a result of newspaper practice, which in turn was driven by its better appearance in type. Not some deep philosophy.
I haven’t made up my mind.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:30 pmAngela says:
I think the letter writer subtly provided the best answer, when he mentioned that he noticed the punctuation style was different in a text he was reading.
Americans find the British style a distraction, and distracting your reader from the point you’re trying to make is something very few writers strive for.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:30 pmJavert says:
Didn’t we already win a war over this?
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:40 pmSteve says:
Putting the punctuation inside the quotation marks can feel jarring to the writer. But putting it outside, at least when writing for an American audience, can be jarring for the reader. The latter consideration is far more important.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:42 pmBill Poser says:
I follow the British rule except when editors demand the American rule because the British rule more accurately reflects what is being quoted. Although I like visually pleasing presentation as much as the next person, I find it perverse to allow aesthetics to trump clarity, especially in this case since I don’t see that the American rule looks much nicer.
A similar case in which I break with standard usage is that I decline to observe the prohibition of single-sentence paragraphs. Ceteris paribus, I agree that very short or very long paragraphs do not look good and will make some effort to avoid them, but if a single sentence deals with a different topic from its neighbors or otherwise involves a sufficient shift in discourse to be put into a paragraph on its own, I prefer the minor aesthetic damage to misleading the reader as to the information structure of the text.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:48 pmApperception says:
What happened to the law?
Quote
November 25, 2009, 4:54 pmMike McDougal says:
The British rule clearly has an appealing logic. It says that everything inside the quotation marks actually existed in the source. And, of course, the comma might not have been in the source.
However, never in my life have I come across an instance in which a comma placed inside quotation marks caused even a hint of comprehension trouble. I can think of instances in which I wondered, as a result of the “, usage, whether the author knew what he was doing.
Thus, it seems authors with U.S. audiences have no real detriment to correct and could incur a detriment by being unorthodox.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:11 pmChrisIowa says:
Actually, two wars.
I was taught to avoid using parentheses. Usually another sentence works as well.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:15 pmOnHawaiianTime says:
Our courtroom uses the British style.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:19 pmEH says:
As I get older and my grammar deterioriates, I find the British style looks and feels more natural in my brutalized sentences.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:31 pmCrunchy Frog says:
I’ve always detested the American rule, and refuse to use it.
Perhaps my programming background has something to do with it, but iirc I was writing in English long before I started writing in BASIC (or FORTRAN, for that matter).
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
I believe this issue was batted about a few months ago in this space.
I can’t recall the resolution, but I believe the catalyst was my use of the British style in a circumstance in which it seemed (before the thread started, at least) more appropriate.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:39 pmJon Rowe says:
I before E accept after C, and now I spel more korektly.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 5:58 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I learned the American way, of course, but I hate putting inside quotes things that don’t go with the quoted material. Now that some people have mentioned computer programming, it occurs to me that the little bit I have done may have influenced me there.
Evidently people who are cool don’t double-space after periods, as we learned to do in typing class; and they don’t use semicolons either.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:13 pmreadery says:
I imagine one has to justify the billable hours somehow. It’s amazing how important otherwise irrelevant details become if fixing them pays upwards of $500 an hour.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:34 pmChicago says:
The life of grammar has not been experience; it has been logic.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:40 pmMark Melickian says:
I’ve been using the British Rule for years in briefs, memos, articles, and general writing (including emails). Same reason as others: The American Rule creates adulterated quotes. I also think the British Rule approach looks aesthetically pleasing (extra white space and all) and not at all awkward. On the other hand, I must not be cool (per Laura’s comment) because I still double-space after sentence periods, use semi-colons, and have recently taken fondly to the m-dash.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:41 pmOrder of the Coif says:
I’m with you, Mark. British system.
The purpose of a quote is to accurately reproduce the quoted text. If the , or . isn’t in the original text, it shouldn’t be within the quote. Now that I know the “American rule” is an invention of journalists, I’ll never follow it.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 6:56 pmKirk Parker says:
Bill Poser,
There’s such a prohibition?
Laura(southernxyl),
That’s because we’re not in typing class anymore.
More to the point, we (usually) get to write and read stuff with (more or less) proportional fonts, which were formerly the province of typesetting; and typesetting never had the two-spaces-after-sentence-punctuation rule.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 7:43 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I know all that, Kirk. Obviously.
But what I am doing here at my keyboard is typing, not typesetting, and my thumb wants to hit that space key twice after the period.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 8:05 pmKirk Parker says:
Laura,
Nice use of ‘obviously’. :-)
Quote
November 25, 2009, 8:06 pmJohn Armstrong says:
Almost every mathematician and computer scientist (and anyone else who thinks syntax matters) would follow the “British” rule. Punctuation has meaning, and if you’re not quoting the punctuation, why include it in the quote?
Quote
November 25, 2009, 8:17 pmAlbatross says:
I like to be curmudgeonly, too. I’m thinking of using the diaeresis more in my writing.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 8:40 pmLeo Marvin says:
This choice is a Rorschach Test for my neuroses. Whichever one I choose inevitably feels wrong.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 9:24 pmFantasiaWHT says:
John Armstrong sums up my thoughts exactly. If the quote did not include the punctuation mark, putting it within the quotation marks is altering the quotation without indicating your alteration. If you want to put a period inside the quote marks that wasn’t in the original quote, you should bracket it. “Like this[.]”
Quote
November 25, 2009, 9:42 pmTrudy says:
I strongly prefer the British rule. I always feel guilty putting the period or comma inside the quotes when it’s not part of the quoted material; it seems dishonest. I’ll use the British rule unless an editor or other authority figure requires it. (My legal writing and research professor and I had several spirited conversations about the issue. He was the one grading my papers, so I used the American rule in his class.)
Quote
November 25, 2009, 9:50 pmMark Field says:
Count me as another who follows British usage.
And my vote for threadwinner goes to Chicago.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 10:08 pmDavid E. Young says:
Dealing with historical materials relating to the development of the Second Amendment, which is virtually all I write about, it does not make sense to add punctuation to quotes, especially when the particular subject is fraught with such extensive disagreement. Being a purist historically, I’ll stick with presentation of the founders’ words as printed, not adding anything to what is present in the historical sources. It is not important what name is applied to this rule or if the result is more or less pleasing. Accuracy is my rule.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 10:10 pmiolanthe says:
Off topic obviously but “Actually, two wars.” Really?
This might be a purely American view. I think the rest of the world sees it as more or less a draw and, if you’re looking at the conquest of territory, well Candada’s status as British was firmly confirmed which probably counts as a loss if your war aim was to conquer them. Perhaps a bit like regarding the Mexican war as a win if Texas had stayed Mexican.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 10:10 pmJeffrey says:
I think the most important thing to remember in this debate is consistency. And by consistency, I’m not referring to using the same rule, American or British, every time. What I am referring to is using the proper quotation marks with the proper ending point.
British grammar uses single quotation marks (‘) and the period on the outside, while American grammar has double quotations (“) with the period on the outside.
My personal preference is the British version because it makes more since from a purely logical perspective.
Quote
November 25, 2009, 11:27 pmOff topic says:
Anyone who pograms a computer on a regular basis will vastly prefer the British rule. Also, there are cases where the British rule makes it clearer whether the author or the quoted source is asking a question.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:04 amMatt says:
Use of British punctuation usually makes American writers look illiterate. British spellings make American writers look either affected (“colour”) or illiterate (“judgement”).
Also: “I thought that was the universally-accepted practice here.”
No, no hyphen. Gah. If this reader doesn’t know when compound adjectives need a hyphen and when they don’t, he’s not competent to be making decisions about his office’s style manual.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:11 amJimmyL says:
I’m kind of surprised by the seemingly overwhelming response in favor of the British rule. Almost all briefs I have read follow the American rule, and I think most (American) style guides suggest the same (Garner’s various books, Texas Rules of Form, which I don’t claim to be the last word on style).
I see the logic of the British rule and the desire for accuracy. But has anyone ever been confused or misled by a comma/period that was not part of the original quotation yet was placed inside the quotation marks? (I’m sure someone will come up with an example.) Perhaps if the quoted material is not a full sentence (i.e., portions at the end are omitted) but a period is included as part of the quotation, then the reader is led to believe that the sentence ended when actually it did not?
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:51 am_quodlibet_ says:
When writing on certain topics, it is necessary to convey whether punctuation is part of the quoted text. (For example, a computer manual might say to enter the command “cp foo/bar .”.) This is accomplished more easily with the logical British method.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 1:13 amsitzpinkler says:
Show me a single instance in which it is an issue — JUST ONE REAL INSTANCE. Surely you can thing of ONE.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 1:57 amsitzpinkler says:
No. Which means using the British rule for American audiences has no benefit and only disadvantages.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 2:01 amsitzpinkler says:
And it’s accomplished even more clearly with italics, underlining, or bracketing.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 2:02 amfranticflintstone says:
I prefer both the British punctuation rule and the British spelling of “judgement”. (Is “judgement” the British spelling, or just the alternative spelling in both America and England?)
You can’t get away with “judgement” in the legal world (it’s fine in other contexts). But not only can you use the British punctuation rule in the legal world, you should use it for the reasons already stated. I doubt a well-written brief that consistently uses the British rule is going to come off as “illiterate” to anyone but an illiterate, and by using that rule you’ll help us influence others. :)
Quote
November 26, 2009, 5:04 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Commas and Periods — Inside Closing Quotation Marks or Outside Them? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by VBalasubramani and PostRank – Economics, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Commas and Periods — Inside Closing Quotation Marks or Outside Them?: A reader asks: I’m trying to finalize a “.. http://bit.ly/7NGyZg [...]
Grammer Guy says:
Both the Chicago Manual of Style and the Government Printing Office Style Manual use the following rule:
Place other punctuation marks correctly in relation to quotation marks: period snd commas go inside; semicolons and colons go outside; and question marks and exclamation marks go inside only if they are part of the quoted matter.
Use the American rule.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 9:52 amTom T. says:
The DOJ “style guide” changes with each Assistant AG, but I’ve never been asked to use the British rule.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 10:40 amSome dude says:
I go way out of my way to construct sentences that don’t have a quotation mark at the end.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 11:05 amJC says:
No question. Use the British rule. This American finds the American rule jarring and illiterate. If you want an example where it makes a difference, consider quoting a web address, where adding the period at the end of the address will take you to the wrong page.
iolanthe: The rest of the world considers the War of 1812 a draw? Seriously?
Quote
November 26, 2009, 11:29 amSteve2 says:
The linguistic logic of the “British rule” (I hadn’t realized it was an American/British thing before reading this post) is why this American prefers it stylistically, aesthetically, and functionally — and therefore, why this American uses it exclusively (and with parenthesis, not just quotation marks). And I do still double-space after periods, I spell Gandalf’s color with an “e” in all contexts, there is no apostrophe in the second-person plural pronoun, hyphenation is to taste, and the last entry in a list gets a comma (unless you’ve switched to semicolons because your list has nested lists). And if anyone tells me I’m incorrect, I do not care. Or rather, care only because I’ve deliberately chosen to use the style I prefer and hope that my example will lead others to make the same usage choices and thereby change what is customary usage and “correct”.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 12:09 pmHenry Schaffer says:
Several people have pointed out that the American rule alters the quoted material. A long time ago I wrote a short computer manual, and put gave an example — essentially _quodlibet_’s one — I wrote the equivalent of:
Enter the command “cp foo/bar”.
The editor changed this for the distributed version to read:
Enter the command “cp foo/bar.”
This version of the instruction didn’t work, but the defense was that it was grammatically correct and mine was not.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 3:20 pmjosil says:
As someone once said, “The American rule raises questions, doesn’t it?”.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 5:32 pmNico says:
Quoting an exclamation point or a question mark from the original makes sense, but ending a quote with a comma from the original doesn’t. Ending a quote with a period from the original makes sense, but confusion will arise, in the American usage, only if the next sentence starts with a proper name (which can be avoided easily enough) or if the placement of the period in the original is particlarly significant (not likely).
IOW, there’s no real risk of confusion with the American rule, except when you’re quoting computer code (in which case it suffices to use a different [fixed width!] font or a block quote).
I don’t worry about this, and neither should you. But yes, at least as far as periods go, the British rule is more accurate.
As to following sentence ending periods with two spaces, that is an excellent rule, even with non-fixed width fonts because it distinguishes sentence ending periods from abbreviation marks. Also, fixed width fonts are the best for any and all computer work, and even for e-mail.
Quote
November 26, 2009, 10:12 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » ADDRESSING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Commas and Periods — Inside Closing Quotation Marks or Outsid… says:
[...] ADDRESSING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Commas and Periods — Inside Closing Quotation Marks or Outside Them? [...]
moptop says:
Angela wins the thread, IMHO, even if she did end her comment with a preposition. ;)
Quote
November 27, 2009, 8:41 amafarrago» Blog Archive » “it is usage and not logic that defines”…. most anything says:
[...] Commas and Periods — Inside Closing Quotation Marks or Outside Them?. [...]
Rex says:
Steve2,
But how do you avoid the apostrophe in “y’all”?
Quote
November 27, 2009, 8:55 amDavid says:
Please, if it is at all possible, let us cleave to the English rule. The fewer arbitrary rules — and the American rule is arbitrary in the sense that it departs from the general logic of punctuation — the more rational our world will be, and we may free up our energies for more important things, such as [insert pet hobby horse here].
Quote
November 27, 2009, 8:57 amJohn Hendrix says:
This American has always rebelled against the “American Style”. I had no clue, however, until this post that I was using the “British Style”.
To my way of thinking it is much more sensible to only place quoted material inside the quotes.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:21 amSteve2 says:
Rex, I treat it as an independent word (the English equivalent of the Spanish “vosotros” and “ustedes”, if you will), rather than a contraction: yall. One advantage I’ve made up for it is that it’s necessary for yall to not be a contraction of “you all” in order for the phrase “all of yall” (which I use regularly) to work. And as illustrated by the facts that all of yall are Volokh Conspiracy readers but only some of yall place periods where I like them, I think it’s important to be able to distinguish between the full set and various subsets when using “yall”.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:25 amJimOSullivan says:
Please record this vote for the unfortunately-named “British rule.”
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:29 amjim from cleveland says:
I encountered the following last evening while reading the Times Literary Supplement: He was outraged when T.S. Eliot in 1931 “screamed out and cried ‘Donne was, I insist, no sceptic’”, though Eliot... Normally, I opt for logic, but those two quotation marks followed by a comma really offends my aesthetic sensibilities.
With respect to the question of what form American lawyers should use, I’m not sure why one would choose to use the British form of punctuation any more than one would use the British spelling of “skeptic.”
Bryan Garner has written a handbook of legal usage, published by Oxford. I don’t have a copy here at home, but I believe he probably has something to say about this. I’m not a lawyer myself, but a lexicographer who has written his fair share of legal definitions for a commercial dictionary.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:30 amern says:
The idea that the American rule is somehow less accurate strikes me as rather silly. There is no risk of misunderstanding in the American rule, save for quoting something very literal, like computer code (in which case I would suggest using something other than quotes to do the job, since the quotes themselves–even without punctuation–can be confusing in those contexts). In my mind, the British rule is ugly and adds nothing. The American rules looks better and subtracts nothing. There’s nothing arbitrary at all about the American rule in my mind. It’s perfectly logical.
As someone who has done a lot of desktop publishing, double spaces are completely unnecessary and in fact quite a lot of hassle. The first thing I did with any text sent to me was to remove the double spaces as they cause spacing issues.
In both cases, I find that the “problems” being solved are mostly in the person’s head.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:31 amAlexander D. Mitchell IV says:
If we are to accept that popular usage and consistency should dictate style–as is apparently being claimed for the so-called “American” usage in this case–then any minute now the stylebooks must be updated to reflect that “it’s” is now the possessive form in American writing.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:41 amlarryk says:
Either is fine... so long as you use the American rule that each and every “s” that end’s a word is preceded by an apostrophe.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:46 amKate says:
When they are outside the quotation mark, visually there is too much space between the sentence or phrase that is being closed and the punctuation mark being used to close that sentence. Looks like homeless punctuation. But that’s not really the issue. If all of the US references tell you to place these marks inside the quotation marks, why are you being so indecisive? It’s very distracting to the reader to read material that is written by somebody who choses to use his own style simply because he prefers it. The rules of mechanics are there to make the process easier for us all, readers and writers alike. This is not an issue of questioning authority, but rather, everyone being on the same page for clarity. Nobody’s rights are being violated here. I could go on...
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:46 amJohn Blake says:
Regardless of ending punctuation (comma, exclamation point or question mark, period et al.), a direct quote requires enclosed quotation marks: “No more of this,” he said. Said he, “No more of this.” In the second instance, a period after the last quotation mark would be redundant.
Citations or indirect quotes do NOT enclose quotation marks: Chronicles admonish, “From the fury of the Norsemen, good Lord deliver us”. The OED defines “coomb” both as a boiling receptacle and as “a sharp and steep ravine where streams all rush downhill”.
The rule is, if your sentence’s end-period is part of a direct quote, particularly dialogue, enclose it. If not, place it outside the citation because the punctuation mark is not included in quoted material.
Strangely enough, English translations from foreign languages uniformly endorse this usage, whereas native English-speakers are typically confused. As Henry Higgins (directly) put it, “Whereas others are instructed in their native language, English people aren’t.”
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:50 amHokiePundit says:
I was taught to use the 2AM Test: What will work best for your reader as s/he reads it at 2AM the morning when it is to be filed or heard? The American rule wins in such a situation.
That said, if your actual argument is over the placement of punctuation then don’t add a single jot or tittle. I doubt anyone’s going to really notice if you use both styles in a single document, and they may even consciously understand why you did it. The legal world is already okay with using periods for things that aren’t sentences, such as citations, so presumably the pillars in front of the Supreme Court won’t fall were one to use one or both styles.
Some dude had the best advice of all, though: figure out a way to sidestep the problem by simply not ending your sentence with a quotation.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:55 amrusty derringer says:
I was always taught the simplest of rules: only punctuation belonging to the quote goes inside the quotation marks. This was before the internet, of course, where sloppiness apparently equates charm. (I can’t speak to trends in the newspaper business; improper punctuation would be the least of their problems.)
The same applies to the use of parentheses.
If an entire sentence is a quote, the end period goes inside the close quote mark.
If part of the sentence is a quote that ends the sentence, the period goes outside the close quote mark.
If part of a sentence is a quote that begins or is in the middle of a sentence, and requires a comma to set it off from the rest of the sentence, the comma goes outside the quote marks.
I know such things are too small to fret about for the likes of InstaPundit, but misplaced punctuaiton is jarring to the eye.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:58 amTheRadicalModerate says:
Don’t forget that ellipses and square brackets have to go inside the quotes. You could then argue that putting all extraneous punctuation inside the quotes is the most consistent.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:00 amHalifaxCB says:
The aesthicization of grammar is a first step on the slippery slope to the aetheticization of politics. Stick to the truth, even if it is ugly and allows the Brits to claim they do something right.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:01 amCurious Passerby says:
Andrew J. Lazarus says:
I read somewhere that the American rule is a result of newspaper practice, which in turn was driven by its better appearance in type. Not some deep philosophy.
I believe the reason the period was put inside the quotation mark was that when using lead type, putting the period outside at the end of a line would make it more likely that it would get bumped and damaged.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:12 amTex Lovera says:
It appears that the proponents of the American Rule prefer form (aesthetics) over function (a logical rule).
Because I am an engineer (albeit a Merkun one), I prefer the British Rule. I do NOT want to include something in a qoute that was NOT in the source material.
AS for putting ellipsis inside the quotes, that would not “violate” my logic rule, as it would indicate that there are words following in the source material.
And yes, I still double-space after a period.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:14 am-Ed. says:
Why permit the adulteration of a perfectly innocent quotation? The American rule was obviously invented by a man.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:16 amRoy Lofquist says:
Well, I’ve got all kinds of issues.
I was a programmer for 45 years and wrote programs in, I don’t know, 50+ (maybe 100+) languages. If it don’t parse it don’t compile. British all the way.
I had a somewhat classical education in grammar school — Latin, George Eliot and Chaucer. British spellings abound when I write. I fight the spell checkers daily.
I studied Deutsch Sprechen a bit. Every noun is capitalized. I never know which is correct — (p/P)resident of the US, (p/P)resident of the PTA — is there a difference?
Don’t try to help me. I am old enough to be a curmudgeon instead of an ********.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:21 amliamascorcaigh says:
The British Rule is a rule because it is based on the principle of leaving the quoted matter unadulterated — which is, after all, the purpose of the quote in the first place.
The American Rule is not a rule but merely a practice as it is based on previous widespread (though not unexceptional) American usage alone and subverts the function of the quote by adulterating its content.
All appeals to “aesthetics”, “ugly white space”, “the Brits are so not where it’s at”, “remember Bunker Hill”, “gut feelings rule!” are merely post factum hoc attempts to salvage an inept vice.
All together now:
God, save our Specious Quote,
God, save our Specious Quote,
God, save our Quote.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:23 amBill S. says:
To hell with those liberal academics. Use the Tory rule.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:28 amC R Krieger says:
QUOTE:
Laura(southernxyl),
Evidently people who are cool don’t double-space after periods, as we learned to do in typing class
Kirk Parker
That’s because we’re not in typing class anymore.
I am with Laura on this. The thing is, a single space after a full stop often looks a little too close. Thus, I recommend the “&” and “nbsp;”, pushed together, after the period, and then a space, when doing blogging and blog commenting.
I just hope it wasn’t the “other Cliff” flogging this British rule. A year at Fox Hill and he was corrupted forever.
Regards — Cliff
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:36 amDewey From Detroit says:
I think Leo’s response speaks most soulfully to this question.
And then there is the whole hobgoblin issue.
Having said that, I’m assuming that this is an American office?
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:50 amJim S. says:
Slightly off topic, but I’ve found the British rule works better for blogging. If I have a word or phrase in quotes and the quoted material is linked, it is easier to have commas and periods outside the quotation marks and thus outside the link.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:52 amBalthar says:
I adhere to the British practice. I also do not switch my fork after cutting the meat.
What the self-appointed “cool” do is of no interest to me. Same with the GPO. Unlike Mr. Marvin, whatever I choose inevitably feels right.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:52 amSidney Raphael says:
The trend is definitely shifting toward the British rule, as far as this one observer can tell. I gave in and started doing things the British way a few months ago. I fought it for years. Now that I follow this method it makes sense to me.
BTW I’ve proofread a few books and know what punctuation is about (ie, justifying your expensive college education).
Quote
November 27, 2009, 10:55 amDick King says:
In George Orwell’s novel 1984, the protagonist, Winston Smith, worked in the Ministry of Truth. The government revised history from time to time, and his job was to make some of the myriad small changes in the published history that constituted the revision.
That was his job before he was found to be disloyal.
After he was discovered to be disloyal, the government brainwashed him, and then they needed a sinecure to give him something to do. His job was to serve on a committee to decide this very issue, for the language NewSpeak which his government was designing.
–dk
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:07 amAnon says:
Comma, schmomma. What about apostrophe abuse? Who’s in charge of that?
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:12 amDoh-San says:
Definitely British. The American practice makes absolutely no sense and looks horrid.
Now, as to those ridiculously misplaced adverbs.....
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:15 amMike Crosby says:
I don’t know what you’re talking about, but that’s why I like to read your blog. Damn you’re smart.
But if it’s what I think you’re talking about, and take it from me, a butt cracking AC mechanic, I like the British way better.
And BTW, thank you for your writings.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:20 aminspectorudy says:
I have always looked at a period as a stop as in a telegram. Therefore it should be the last item in a sentence. If the quotes are the last thing then it would appear as if the sentence was a run on except for the capital letter at the beginning of the next sentence. As many here have observed there should be nothing within the quotes except the actual quote itself. If the American system came from the MSM then I will definitely not use it!
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:52 amHMI says:
I can’t claim any great virtue for my own practice, but I long ago evolved a hybrid style which I use consistently—having once been told by an editor that consistency makes for a rule. Commas and periods almost always go inside the quotation marks. In the ‘body’ of the sentence, other punctuation generally goes inside the quotation marks. At the end of a sentence (or independent clause), other punctuation most often goes outside, unless it is part of the quoted material.
Jones assured me, “You have nothing to worry about.”
Hale said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”
Still, Obama assures us, “We will be better off after this reform bill passes”!
What makes you think that your only choice is, “Give me liberty or give me death”?
He spoke of “blue skies,” “black nights,” and “green grass.”
He spoke over and over of “blue skies,” “black nights,” and “green grass”; I got bored and left.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:55 amSailfish says:
It has been East Anglicized since, “Earth in the Balance”.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 11:55 amJM Hanes says:
I’m just glad to know that the British rule exists, and that, at my age, I don’t have to remember which way is “correct.” It would be nice if the Brit rules on commas were different, too!
Quote
November 27, 2009, 12:15 pmgrs says:
Inside.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 12:24 pmBen says:
Maybe this is not a good way to do it, but I more or less use a hybrid of the two. When the situation invloves an actual quotation of some sort, I always use the American rule. But when I am using quotation marks to designate the name of something, I typically use the British rule. (e.g., “Kicking the ball through the uprights is called a ‘field goal’, and is worth three points.”)
While I realize that using the British rule in the latter situation is not aesthetically perfect, to my eye, it looks even worse to use the American rule in such situations. So I just go with the lesser of two uglies.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 12:34 pmRhodium Heart says:
For legal briefs: a bracketed period — “[.]” — goes inside the quote marks when the quote quoted is not quoted until the period.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 12:42 pmMilwaukee D says:
Embrace the British rule. Punctuation matters, and only what is being quoted goes into the quotation marks. And while we’re at it, today is 27 Nov. 2009. Let’s go day-month-year, smallest to largest, and join the rest of the world.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 12:43 pmCharlie says:
I use American over British style mostly when I’m more concerned about appearance in print. American practice derives from a typesetters’ convention. (But then our word woman derives from a similar convention when English scribes found wifman illegible in the vertically-stroked style of the times and rather arbitrarily changed the “if” to “o”.)
What is not acceptible is the autotype function of inserting a left quotation mark for an initial apostrophe.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 1:03 pmcthulhu says:
John Blake was closest when he was talking about direct quotes or citations.
I would suspect that technology is going to drive this issue more than aesthetics, however. Simply put, if one is a reporter of a quote, the comma or period is put inside the quotation marks. If one is passing on the information, then the only items inside the quotation marks are exactly what is within the source text. In other words, if you’re typing it in, you put the period inside; if you’re cutting and pasting, you leave it outside.
As an example, I could say that I was at the meeting and heard him say, “wharrgarbl.”
Later, someone else might reply or comment that, according to me, he said, “wharrgarbl”.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 1:11 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
About here, I started hearing this.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 2:00 pmFran A says:
I am 70 years old and, for some time, I have been aware that the current (American) rules differ from those I was taught in grades 5–9. Now I know why — in almost every case, we were taught English — the idea being that there were a variety of American corruptions of the rules and who knew which corruption would emerge. Somewhere in the mid-50s, there was an attempt to drop the word “whom” and use “who” in its place.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 2:20 pmCBI says:
I am finding the so-called British rule to be preferred in scientific matters, where accuracy is of import. For legal matters, the decision rests upon whether accuracy or aesthetics is more valued, or so it seems from here.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 3:13 pmNot My Leg says:
If following the American rule (period inside ending quotation mark) is this correct (assuming the quote does not end in a period). Professor Volokh “see[s] the value of the British rule[.]”
I know that if I was asked to check a quote for accuracy I would flag “Professor Volokh ‘see[s] the value of the British rule.’” as inaccurate, because that is not the quote.
Under the American system which is correct. Should it be [.] to indicate that the punctuation, although necessary in my sentence, is not part of the quote, or just .?
Quote
November 27, 2009, 4:06 pmMarzbar says:
Either way is perfectly cromulent.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 4:23 pmEinhverfr says:
Laura:
Double-spacing after periods is important in Microsoft Word, or on a typewriter. With better software it is better to let the software handle the spacing.
That is, until you have to write about some obscure part of St. Olaf’s Saga (and the software puts too much space between St. and Olaf)....
As for American vs British rule, I think that while the British rule seems more compelling logically and might provide more flexibility in punctuation, I think the question largely amounts to audience. What do you think your own audience will relate to better? If your audience spends a fair bit of time reading international publications, it might be worth sticking with the British rule. If not, the American rule will be less jarring.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 5:05 pmDoug Deal says:
For those that think the American form does not cause confusion in normal writing should consider the following:
(American form)
Did he say “This is a nice cup of coffee?”
(Britishesque form)
Did he say “This is a nice cup of tea.”?
In the first example, how does the reader know the author was making a statement, not asking a question? Anyone who would sacrifice clarity for aesthetics has his priorities poorly placed.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 5:20 pmSteve2 says:
No, a second period is necessary, not redundant. The period inside the quotation marks only applies to (No more of this). You’ve got to have a second period to apply to the (Said he) and close the sentence. The interior of quotation marks is like a black box: what goes on inside them is completely isolated from what goes outside them. Such, at least, is my view of matters.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 6:30 pmIago says:
As a child I was taught the American way, and I rejected it as stupid; if it is not part of the quote, it does not belong in quotation marks. Not until I read this article did I realize that there was a “British way”, though I had always used it.
Learn something every day.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:31 pmVixapphire says:
I use that, but only when I’ve got verbal diarrhea.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:39 pmAbove the fray says:
This isn’t fair! The British style is clearly more logical but preferring it forces one to agree with all the boomer hippies who went to Europe on summer vacation and came back saying Europe was better than America. I refuse!
When I was in high school I thought I couldn’t believe anything in the textbooks because the authors must have chosen their words carefully to end evenly in each line of each justified paragraph. But then I took print shop and discovered that the type machines magically justified each line!
But the thing I always wondered about was, I know people in Europe lived just fine before Columbus discovered America, and people used candles before they discovered electricity, but what the hell did people do before Newton discovered gravity? Did they glue furniture to the floor and use velcro boots to walk around? Life without gravity would have been difficult. And you don’t see it in any old paintings!
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:44 pmAnne says:
JimmyL,
Use an ellipsis at the end of a quotation that is not the end of the sentence so your reader will know the sentence continued. For example, “Parker said he had never been in the house before....”
And here’s another grammar quagmire: when using an ellipsis, do you use three periods or four? Use three when connecting fragments and four when the missing fragment concludes the sentence.
As for the debate about commas and periods inside quotation marks, I say, when in America, use the American rule. When in Britain, use the British rule.
Quote
November 27, 2009, 9:52 pmBill Voorhees says:
See Strunk and White, then you can quit this nonsense and bill for actual work.
Quote
November 28, 2009, 4:39 amFeFe says:
British rule except for periods.
Quote
November 28, 2009, 11:27 amLoboSolo says:
I, too, never realized that there was an “American/British” rule. I do know that putting punctuation inside the quotes is an old typesetter rule that has nothing to do with grammar.
I never, never put the period inside the quote at the end of sentence unless what I am quoting ends in period. Example: This is the “British rule”. That’s the way I do it. I makes much more sense than: This is the “American rule.”
As for double spacing after periods and colons, again an old rule for fixed width fonts. It doesn’t apply to modern fonts.
And yes, I also put a comma after the last entry before “and” in a list. That was taught as proper in the sheriff’s academy tho I did it well before then.
I also use tho, altho, thru ... and I let my professors know that these were acceptable alternative spellings before writing the papers.
Quote
November 28, 2009, 11:44 amGeorge B says:
I refuse to use the illogical “American Rule”. I’ve only done a little computer programming, but what little I’ve done has taught me the importance of syntax errors.
Quote
November 28, 2009, 12:23 pmMario Rizzo says:
Why must there be just one way? Can’t there be more than one “correct” usuage? Would this confuse the children any more than most English rules?
Quote
November 28, 2009, 7:51 pmFran A says:
Of course there can be more than one rule. But company or firm style manuals (whether developed internally or designated) are so that documents or web sites assembled from the writings of several people will be developed by one set of rules.
Quote
November 28, 2009, 7:55 pmKev says:
2AM in the morning, you say? As opposed to 2AM in the evening? Sounds like the Department of Redundancy Department to me.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 6:01 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Your snark is unattractive, Kev. The original quote doesn’t say “2AM in the morning”, it says “2AM the morning when it is to be filed or heard”. As opposed to “2AM a week before it will be used”. I can appreciate this although I use the British rule in my explanation.
Quote
November 29, 2009, 12:45 pmspeedwell says:
I use exactly the same system as HMI. As part of my job, supporting an engineering database for a multinational oil corporation, I write documentation for the engineers. The engineers love me, and what’s more important, actually use my documentation, because (they say) my writing is functional and clear.
Some busybody documentation “specialist” in Houston with some sort of official professional copywriting degree took exception to my quotation marks policy last year. She complained to my boss. He has a wry Scottish sense of humor. He told me, simply, to use the “correct” punctuation. That year I traveled to the UK five times. “Correct” punctuation depended on where my butt sat at the moment I was writing the documentation in question. The busybody complained again. I told my boss to ask the busybody to define “correctness” with regard to quotation marks, in a way that would be mutually acceptable to both sides of the pond. Unfortunately, she did not take the bait, and we were not entertained by her attempts to provide such a definition.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:38 amTomB says:
The British rule is better. The American rule makes no sense. The added whitespace would not look weird if you were not used to not seeing it. It is senseless to sacrifice clarity for aesthetics. I also use the oxford comma, for much the same reason.
I am an a software engineer and an attorney. Of course as a junior attorney, I do whatever my supervisor tells me to do.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:03 amMark E. Horning says:
Accuracy, clarity, and substance over form every single time. Hey I’m a physicist.
Punctuation goes inside the quotes only if part of the quote.
Double space after a full stop (period).
Use the oxford comma.
Cross your sevens and the letter “z” when writing longhand.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 12:06 amTheBigHenry says:
Your example usage should use a close-quote not an open-quote, namely:
Quote
December 18, 2009, 10:23 amRobert says:
I’m curious for those who support the British and are so concerned with correct punctuation, do you include a double period when you quote a full sentence? Such as “Jim thought the apple looked tasty.”. That seems a little overboard, but in order to be true to the quoted text, it should be included. The argument that not including this extra first period does not materially change the quotation–or that it is somehow implied–just seems to strengthen the case for the American system which looks aesthetically better. In my opinion of course!
Quote
December 30, 2009, 4:18 am