This article was in today's Huffington Post. The woman who wrote it, apparently well-educated, cannot understand why (in her first rule) the punctuation moves inside and outside the quotes.
Am I wrong or is it because in each case the punctuation is intended to show which part of the sentence is being modified by the punctuation. If the question is inside the quote, that's where the mark goes. If the sentence offers the question, but the quote does not, then it goes outside. Similarly for the exclamation.
That makes sense, but it no longer matters. You will be labeled a prescriptivist, and will have to wear a scarlet "P", thus making you an object of derision and ridicule to all but Harold Bloom.
I think there may be a misunderstanding of my comment. The author doesn't understand why the question mark and exclamations are sometimes inside the quote marks and at other times outside.
For example:
Bill thought he heard his wife say, "Are you ready?" Did Bill hear his wife say, "I am ready"?
In the first, the comment by the wife needs a Q mark.
In the second, the mark refers to whether Bill heard his wife's statement (which in this case does not need a Q mark.
In fact, switching the Q mark (or an exclamation, if it was used in similar cases) would confuse the issue.
So far as I can see, that particular article seemed to be "correcting" mistakes she thought she'd made in an earlier post. She'd presumably been swamped by like-minded prescriptivists anxious to put her straight. That's one good reason not to be a prescriptivist, of course.
However, her "rules", whatever form they take, are just conventions, as zmj points out.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, it would confuse the issue for some, I think. Perhaps not most, though.
I was intrigued by her example:
"Another example: I was really sad to hear the student say, "I'm simply not in the mood for college"! (outside quotation marks)"
First, I just don't see why anyone would want to end that sentence in an exclamation mark, either inside or outside the quotes. However, if you can convince me of that, I'd think there should be a period after college so that it was "...college."! I know that's unwieldy, but that quote was a complete sentence.
Since the author cites Strunk and White as being "venerable" authors, I don't have much faith in her.
I'd think there should be a period after college so that it was "...college."! I know that's unwieldy, but that quote was a complete sentence.
That would be the logical way to do it but as we've said many times logic has nothing to do with it. Nobody ever punctuates that way. The old "rule" that punctuation ALWAYS goes inside, has gradually given way to a slightly more flexible idea that punctuation goes where it's more sensible.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
You are right that it looks weird, but we've discussed it here before. While the meaning seems clear to me, I suppose you would be fine without the period, too. Either way you'd understand it.
Does anyone know if there is a term for those three punctuation marks? I know we've talked about this before, and I'd like to find that previous conversation. However, I don't know how to look for it.
