In another thread CJ has asked if I can transfer my post on this topic from the FOTA board to here.

It was posted in response to a question about the rules that govern this. Here it is in its entirity.

-------------------------------------------------
Are you sitting comfortably ?
Then I'll begin.

Of all the vexing questions raised by punctuation few are quite as vexing as what to do about it when quotation marks are involved.
The question raised by your son arises because of the traditional way of dealing with quotation marks - the problem being that the traditional way is completely illogical.
In old fashioned conventional grammars the "rule" is as follows

i/ Stops (full stops, question marks etc.) ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks even if logically they do not form part of the quoted material.

ii/ Where the quoted material doesn't terminate the sentence (as in your example) then they are considered to only terminate the material within the quotation marks so that no following capital letter is required. Some style guides do however require a comma after the closing mark. This isn't Universally adhered to.

iii/ Where the quoted material does terminate the sentence - for example
Her father said, "Quiet!" -
no further punctuation mark is necessary.

iv/ Where there is a conflict between what would be the outer punctuation mark and the inner one then the outer one is used even if this would be illogical for the quoted material. For example
Did you say "He's here?"
rather than
Did you say "He's here"?

This of course changes the meaning of the quoted material from a statement into a question and without further information means that there is no way to tell how it was actually meant.

OK. Those are the traditional rules and they are - to put it plainly - stupid. The ambiguity in that last example is a direct consequence of the "rule". Your son's question arises from applying the "end of a sentence" rule to a "start of the sentence" construction.

In modern times there has been something of a shift towards applying the logical rule of putting the punctuation with the structure to which it applies. If it is part of the quoted material it goes inside the quote, if it isn't it goes outside.
Personally I am whole-heartedly in favour of this logical usage and as soon as the nonsensical traditional version is wiped out I'll give a hearty cheer. In fact I'd go one step further and suggest that the best thing to do would be to allow the use of different punctuation marks inside and outside the quoted material as required by the sense of the structure. (Some examples are given below.)

Of course some people object on the grounds that the resulting constructions - if the logical form is applied consistently - look ugly.

Did you say, "Wow!"?
Did you ask, "Why?"?
Did you say, "I'm here."?
I said, "No!".

These forms may look inelegant and clumsy to some - though they look fine to me - and indeed few style guides and few grammarians would recommend them but they have the merit of being entirely unambiguous in their meanings.
In fact right now I'd like to start a campaign for this logical usage.
Is anybody out there with me on this one ?

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I'm totally with you on this one, B.H.

If you said Wow! and I wasn't sure who voiced surprise in this way, I should be able to write Did you say "Wow!"? since Did you say "Wow?" makes no sense. (I'm using boldface here to avoid the quotation marks within quotation marks confusion which is another matter entirely.) Nobody said Wow? and I know it and I'm not asking that at all.

It may appear ugly to some but, as in the case of Did he say "That's a great mutt!"? it's the only logical way to phrase the thought without a completely tortured rewriting of the sentence.

I am so in favor of having logical contructions rule the day in this regard that, for the sake of consistency, I am willing to completely reverse my view of the dreaded "S' vs. S's" controversy and begin taking R.E.'s view of the matter. (That thud you just heard was R.E. hitting the floor. Someone pass him a beer, wouldja please?) Logic should be the primary deciding factor as to what is right or wrong.

Two points, however. First, I still maintain that any sub-group of English speakers has the right to determine what is proper usage for them regarding apostrophes, semi-colons, commas after the "and," split infinitives, or (and/or?) whatever. Secondly, even logic can be carried too far. In the first line of this post, I didn't add a period (full stop) after B.H. since the one after the H was enough to end the sentence. To say I'm with you on this one B.H.. introduces the phenomenon of a double period which I think would just invite ridicule and probably very rightly so.

That seems fine to me - and I am actually presently drinking an excellent pint of Fuller's 1845 (sadly not available in the USA since it is arguably the finest bottled beer brewed)

Incidentally, many style guides suggest that, when quotations appear within quotations, then different quotation marks are used. Thus, if the main quotation is set off with single marks, then the internal quote has doubled marks (or vice versa). This is the system I have used in my quotation above.

Richard English

Thanks, Bob, for the cogent explanation. I take it that you disagree with the example in my workplace's style manual? I sure do. That punctuation looks absolutely ludicrous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Thanks, Bob, for the cogent explanation. I take it that you disagree with the example in my workplace's style manual.] .

---

I certainly do ! Regardless of whether you apply the old fashioned illogical rule or the logical system that I'd prefer to use, I can see no sense in ever immediately following a stop (i.e. a full stop, question mark or exclamation mark) with a comma and to put that comma inside the quotes is plainly ridiculous.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:

I am so in favor of having logical contructions rule the day in this regard that, for the sake of consistency, I am willing to completely reverse my view of the dreaded "S' vs. S's" controversy and begin taking R.E.'s view of the matter.

---

And thus, by accident, I have achieved what months of haranguing have failed to do.

For my next trick I intend to persuade the leaders of our two nations of the contentious proposition that "war is a bad thing".

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

This is a momentous occasion!

CJ, that was exactly why, in some thread weeks ago, I finally sided with Richard on the "s's" debate. It just made sense. In fact, I hate the "Jesus" and "Moses" exceptions. Punctuation should be logical. My managing editor's example just looks silly; yet she says she wrote it using several accepted sources. I wish we who spoke English relied on one authority for grammar, much like the OED for words. How hard would that be?

Although they are cited as exceptions, in most sources they are shown as "permitted exceptions". I infer from this that it is therefore possible to use the "normal" construction if you prefer.

Thus you could use either "Ulysses's" or "Ulysses'" and either would be correct. However, it is difficult to pronounce "Ulysses's" and this is why, at least in speech, many use the other construction.

So, Kalleh, you will not be wrong if you choose not to use the exceptions although, as I have said, they are few and relatively unusual.

It would, I agree, be useful to have just the one style book - but what would that do to the language? Remember the French attempts at language control - they've been a positive disadvantage to the language.

Richard English

To misquote Mandy Rice-Davis, "...well, she would say that, wouldn't she?..."

I think I would ask (in a tacful and roundabout manner) to see the sources. You could say, for example, that you want to improve your own use of language and are presently researching.

I suspect you will find that they either do not exist or have been misquoted!

Richard English

Pardon my ignorance, but would you explain that reference to Mandy Rice-Davis?

From
http://www.televisionpersonalities.co.uk/people.htm

quote:

---

In July 1961, the British Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, shared a sexually charged frolic with goodtime girl Christine Keeler in the swimming pool of Cliveden, the Berkshire mansion owned by Lord Astor. At the same time as seeing Profumo, Keeler was also having an affair with a Russian naval attaché, Yevgeny Ivanov, about whom allegations of espionage later surfaced. Amidst accusations that national security had been breached, Profumo initially lied to Parliament regarding his involvement with Keeler. He was later unmasked and compelled to resign, in June 1963. Stephen Ward, the society osteopath and painter who first introduced Keeler to Profumo, Ivanov and Lord Astor, was then charged with living off immoral earnings. During the trial in 1963, Keeler's friend Mandy Rice-Davies gave evidence in court that she and Lord Astor had slept together. Ward committed suicide before the jury returned their verdict

---

Te specific reference was to the fact that when told at the trial that Lord Astor denied the allegation she responded with "Well, he would, (say that) wouldn't he."

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Thank you; I didn't know either. But let me digress a bit.

"Ward committed suicide before the jury returned their verdict"

Would you say "their" or "its"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by shufitz:
Thank you; I didn't know either. But let me digress a bit.

"Ward committed suicide before the jury returned their verdict"

Would you say _"their"_ or _"its"_?

---

This is another of those subjects that seems to get people hot under the collar.
Technically, they argue, a jury is one entitity and needs a singular verb. Ah, the opposition cries, it's made up of lots of individuals and so it needs a plural verb.

I'm with the moderates myself. If you are talking about it as a single entity use a singular verb, if you mean it as a group then use a plural one. Both sound OK and both are, to me perfectly acceptable.

The team plays well.
The team play well together.

In the second example there a singular verb is patent nonsense as one entity can't do anything together.


Cobuild English Grammar (which is a descriptive rather than a proscriptive grammar) says

quote:

---

When you use a collective noun you can use either a singular or a plural verb after it. You choose a singular verb if you think of the group as a single unit and a plural verb if you think of the group as a number of individuals.

---

I won't bother typing out their long list of examples. I'm sure you can make up some for yourself.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Well, I will weigh in here. I always consider entities like "jury", "committee", or "faculty" to be singular. If I intend plural, I say, "members of the jury", "committee members" or "faculty members". Would it sound right to say "the jury are deliberating"? Not to me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobHale:
Stephen Ward ... was then charged with living off immoral earnings. [QUOTE]

In England, this is a crime? Here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Lazy, it's considered a highly desirable position!

Boy, you've got that right, CJ, and it rather makes me sick. I frequently see 28-year-olds (Ivy League graduates) living off their inheritances in this neck of the woods. What a waste.

Remember the sentence I posted in my workplace's style manual: The nurse, who wrote the article "Why is licensure important?," submitted a new article for publication last week.
Well, since everyone here agreed with me, I decided to confront my managing editor. After all, that example rather embarrasses me. So-- armed with your posts, I went to her office. She is a sweet, very hard-working, intelligent young woman. I told her that several of us disagreed with that example, and then she looked at me with sad-dog eyes and pointed to her style references. I am sorry to say, I then wimped out. She asked me who disagreed, and I told her it was some British people I know. She brightened up and said, "Oh you know the English-- they do everything different. They even spell "honor" with a "u"! I am abashed to say that I weakly said, "Yes, I know"....and left her office. I hate sad-dog eyes!

So, which were these references? I think we should be told since they are so clearly wrong!

Richard English

Is there and Anglo-American difference again here?

"Living off immoral earnings" means, in the UK, living off the profits of prositution.

In the UK prostition is not actually illegal (unlike the situation in much of the USA). However, just about everything connected with prostitution is illegal.

It is illegal for prostitutes to solicit for custom (in any way); it is illegal for their customers to approach them (kerb-crawling is now a serious offence); it is illegal for two or more prostitutes to work in the same location (that makes it a brothel) and, as we have seen, it is illegal for anyone, except a prostitute him or herself, to live off the earnings of prositution.

There is a school of thought that suggests that the laws on prostitution (like the laws on drinking) should be swept away and the whole business (which is a huge one in every country in the world) be properly regulated and afforded the protection of the police.

It is argued that this would remove much of the crime now associated with the business (just as did the repeal of prohibition in the USA remove much of the crime related to drinking)

Richard English

Richard, this is probably not one of those U.S./U.K. differences. I think it is a "Kalleh vs. the rest of the world" difference. You are right, of course, that living off inherited money is really not "immoral". Perhaps CJ was speaking about money gained immorally by politicians, CEOs, and the like.

I personally find it disgusting, though probably not immoral, for people to live off family money rather than to contribute to society themselves. These are usually bright, privileged people from families that have been hugely successful (the "Walgreens" in the U.S. come to mind), and they have so much to offer.

Sorry about the confusion.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Sun Jan 19th, 2003 at 17:58.]

It is, in fact a US versus UK difference at this level.

In the UK, even now, the people who are most revered are those with "old" money. If you are a peer of the realm whose many times great gandfather became wealthy through, say, the slave trade or piracy you will be very respectable and nobody would be concerned if you or your descendents didn't work.

However, if your father made his money by, say, running a supermarket chain, you would not be looked in the same respectful light!

Whereas this is far less true than it was a couple of generations ago, there is still some truth in it.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Well, I will weigh in here. I always consider entities like "jury", "committee", or "faculty" to be singular. If I intend plural, I say, "members of the jury", "committee members" or "faculty members". Would it sound right to say "the jury are deliberating"? Not to me.

---

Here's another from today's paper: "Clergy wrestle with giving advice..."

In this sence, clergy is plural, although I think of it as singular. What say you?

Morgan, I sense it as plural, in that each individual clergyman (clergyperson?) much wrestle with his or her own conscience. Conceptually, it certainly is an interesting question you raise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morgan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh:
Here's another from today's paper: "Clergy wrestle with giving advice..."

---

Clergy is a collective noun and, as such, can take either a singular or plural verb. Of course, you already knew that. In this sentence the plural sounds right to my ears. I can think of other cases where a singular verb might sound better. For example, if clergy had been preceeded by the or followed by a "to be" verb, a singular verb. It's a tough call and I wouldn't fault anyone for their choice.

From the AHD:

collective noun
n.
A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.

Usage Note: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: (boldface mine) The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team. See Usage Note at government. See Usage Note at group.

government
n.
Usage Note: In American usage government always takes a singular verb. In British usage government, in the sense of a governing group of officials, takes a plural verb: The government are determined to follow this course. See Usage Note at collective noun.

group
n.
Usage Note: Group as a collective noun can be followed by a singular or plural verb. It takes a singular verb when the persons or things that make up the group are considered collectively: The dance group is ready for rehearsal. Group takes a plural verb when the persons or things that constitute it are considered individually: The group were divided in their sympathies. See Usage Note at collective noun.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Tinman