Are full stops placed inside or outside quotation marks?

Are full stops placed inside or outside quotation marks?

by

Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au

Consider the following sentence:

    One meaning of vis-a-vis is "in relation to".

Should the full stop be inside the closing quotation mark or outside it?

In US English, the full stop is usually placed inside the closing quotation mark in this sentence. In British English, it is usually placed outside.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. The placement of punctuation relative to a closing quotation mark is surprisingly complex. What's worse, the rules for US English are quite different to those for British English.

Indeed, practices vary, not only between US and UK English but within each group.

----------

US ENGLISH

----------

(Users of British English are advised to skip this section to avoid confusing the issue.)

Users of US English place the comma in the following sentence inside the closing quotation marks.

  "Hello," said John.

Incidentally, the comma is used to separate *what* was said from *who* said it. Here's another example:

 "Hello," he said. "How are you today?"

Note that both the comma and the question mark are inside the quotes.

Here are some further examples. Once again, note that the punctuation is inside the quotation marks.

  "Go home," she said to the dog.

  "Go home!" she said to the dog.

Note that in the second example the exclamation mark is used instead of the comma, not in addition to it.

If one speech or quotation occurs within another, enclose the inner one in single quotes. For example:

  "He said 'You should have known.' I was outraged!"

Notice that two distinct sentences finish at the word "known":

"He said ..." and "You should ...". Even so, there is only a one full stop, not two, and it is (once again) inside the closing quote.

Here is another example that illustrates how we avoid double punctuation when two sentences end at the same word:

  No one heard when he said "I need help."

See? Only one full stop. Needless to say, it's inside the closing quote.

Question marks, though, can be a little confusing when used with quotation marks. Compare these sentences:

  He said "What is seven times six?"

  Is it true that he said "What is seven times six"?

In the first one, it's consistent with what we've seen so far that the question mark is inside the closing quote.

In the second sentence, though, there are two questions being asked: "Is it true ..." and "What is ...". Even so, we only use a single question mark.

Notice, though, that it is placed *outside* the closing quote. (Just when you thought this was going to be easy! Don't worry, though, users of British English have it *much* harder.)

In summary, when punctuating quotations, US English places most punctuation inside the closing quotation mark.

---------------

BRITISH ENGLISH

---------------

(Users of American English are advised to skip this section to avoid confusing the issue.)

Users of British English usually place the comma in the following sentence outside the quotation marks.

  "Hello", said John.

Incidentally, the comma is used to separate *what* was said from *who* said it. Here's another example:

  "Hello", he said. "How are you today?"

Note that even though the comma is outside the quotes, the question mark is inside the quotes. Why?

The comma is not considered to be part of what was actually said, so it was placed outside the quotes. (It's part of the punctuation of the surrounding sentence, rather than of the quotation.) The question mark, however, is part of the spoken text, so it's placed inside the quotes.

There is a certain common sense to this, but it does make punctuating British English harder than punctuating US English.

Here's another example:

  "Go home!", she said to the dog.

The exclamation mark is part of what was said (or, rather, *how* it was said), so it is inside the quotation marks. The comma is not part of what was said but is part of the surrounding sentence. It separates *what* was said from *who* said it, so it's outside the quotation marks.

Here's another example:

  The man said "Is it strange?", but no one listened.

Notice that the comma is outside the quotes (because it's not part of what was said), but the question mark is inside them.

If an entire sentence is in quotation marks, the terminal punctuation is placed inside the quotes. For example:

  "He's on his own with this one."

If one speech or quotation occurs within another, enclose it in single quotes if you normally use double quotes (and vice versa).

For example:

  "He said 'You should have known'. I was outraged!"

Notice in this example, that two sentences finish on the word "known", yet there is only a single full stop, not two. Notice also that the full stop after "known" appeared outside the quotes.

Similarly, we write:

  No one heard when he said "I need help".

Notice again that even though two sentences finish on the word "help", there is only a single full stop, and it occurs outside the quote.

It should come as no surprise then to learn that we write:

  Is it true that he said "What is seven times six"?

not:

  Is it true that he said "What is seven times six?"?

The intention here is to avoid using the same punctuation mark twice in succession.

Finally, consider these sentences:

  He said "What is seven times six?".

  He said "That's dreadful!".

In the first example, there is a question mark to end the question and a full stop to end the surrounding sentence. In the second example, there is an exclamation mark to end the quotation and a full stop to end the surrounding sentence.

In summary, when punctuating quotations, British English places some punctuation inside the closing quotation mark and some outside. Knowing which is which is almost rocket science.

Now might be a good time to have a cup of tea and a little lie down.  :-)

Double negatives needn't be no sin!

Double negatives needn't be no sin!

by

Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au

I'm going to go out on a limb here and contradict most of the books ever written on the subject of grammar. (Who said I wasn't brave?) Traditional advice has always been not to use double negatives. For example, sentences such as these are traditionally frowned on:

    I didn't do nothing!

   

    Don't give me no lip!

   

    There ain't no such thing.

Detractors will argue that such sentences involve a contradiction of the intended meaning. In the first sentence, if the speaker didn't do nothing then he or she must have done something. In the second sentence, the speaker seems to be asking to be given some lip and, in the third sentence, the speaker is arguing that there is such a thing.

My position is that while these criticisms are pedantically true, there's really no likelihood that anyone would misunderstand the intended meaning.

If a mother turns to her child and snaps "Don't give me no lip!", it would take a particularly slow-witted child to assume that she was inviting a dispute. (And certainly even the dullest child wouldn't make that particular mistake twice!)

No, far from being misunderstood, in most cases a double negative actually makes the intended meaning more clear by being more emphatic. For example, consider these sentences:

    I didn't do it!

   

    I didn't do nothing!

To me, the second one seems like a stronger, more emphatic denial by virtue of having two negative words (didn't and nothing), rather than just one (didn't). The speaker might not be more believable, but he or she does sound more emphatic.

So even though a literal interpretation of a double negative may contradict the speaker's intended meaning, it's unlikely to be ambiguous in context. On the contrary, the meaning is probably made even clearer: doubly so.

Having said this, double negatives remain a non-standard usage. They may be quite suitable in casual conversation but are not usually suited to a work environment.

In summary then, double negatives needn't be no sin!

Apostrophes: a gentle introduction

Apostrophes: a gentle introduction

Apostrophes are a common source of confusion for many writers. They needn't be, though, and this easy-to-follow article will help you to use them properly.

Let's start with a very simple explanation of what a noun is. (Don't worry, this will be the only jargon in the entire article. I promise.)

A NOUN is a word that stands for a person or thing. Examples include "dog", "Tim", "love", "house" and "Ireland".

SINGULAR NOUNS stand for a single person or thing; for example, "chair". PLURAL NOUNS stand for several people or things; for example, "chairs".

PART 1. USING APOSTROPHES TO INDICATE POSSESSION

------------------------------------------------

The most common use of an apostrophe is to indicate possession by a person or thing of some other person or thing. For example:

"John's book" or "Europe's history".

Using an apostrophe to indicate possession is really quite straight forward, yet it's a frequent source of confusion. There are two separate cases to consider: singular nouns and plural nouns.

SINGULAR NOUNS

When a noun is singular (i.e. it stands for a single person or thing) we show possession by adding apostrophe–s. For example:

    the girl's book

    Japan's recovering economy

    the princess's gown

    Mauritius's beaches

    the cat's whiskers

Summary: Singular nouns are made possessive by adding apostrophe–s.

PLURAL NOUNS

When a noun is plural (i.e. it stands for a several people or things) we show shared possession by adding an apostrophe after the "s". For example:

    the CEOs' perks        (the perks shared by two or more CEOs)

    the players' pride     (the pride shared by two or more players)

    the programmers' books (the books shared by two or more programmers)

    the boys' games        (the games belonging to two or more boys)

Summary: Plural nouns are made possessive by adding an apostrophe after the "s".

AN EXCEPTION

As with many rules, there is an exception. This one concerns nouns that form their plural without adding an s. For example:

woman/women, person/people, sheep/sheep and child/children.

Words like this take apostrophe–s in both their forms. For example:

    the woman's idea        (the idea belonging to one woman)

    the women's idea        (the idea belonging to two or more women)

    the child's gift        (the gift belonging to one child)

    the children's gift     (the gift belonging to two or more children)

Summary: Nouns that become plural without using an "s" (e.g. woman/women) are made possessive by adding apostrophe–s to both forms.

PART 2. USING APOSTROPHES TO INDICATE MISSING LETTERS

-----------------------------------------------------

Another use of the apostrophe is to indicate missing letters in contractions such as "isn't", "doesn't" and "can't". For example:

    ---------------------------

    Full form    Shortened form

            ---------------------------

            can not        can't

            do not         don't

            does not       doesn't

            I will         I'll

            is not         isn't

            it is          it's

            let us         let's

            there is       there's

            you are        you're

            ---------------------------

You'll notice that the apostrophe appears in place of the omitted letter or letters. For example, in contracting "is not" to "isn't" the apostrophe replaces the missing "o".

That's all there is to it. Practise those simple rules, and you'll be the local expert on apostrophes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You'll find many more helpful tips like these in Tim North's much applauded range of e-books. More information is available on his web site, and all books come with a money-back guarantee.

          http://www.scribe.com.au/ebooks.html

"Affect" or "effect": it's harder than you think!

"Affect" or "effect": it's harder than you think!

by

Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au

"Affect" and  "effect" are commonly misused. Here are some simple examples to help you get them straight.

The most common meaning of "affect" is to influence; e.g.

    The new image AFFECTED the size of the file.

    The new sense of respect AFFECTED him profoundly.

    The sunlight has AFFECTED the finish of this paint.

Another meaning of "affect" is to behave artificially; e.g.

    He AFFECTED a lisp and pranced about.

    He tried to AFFECT an air of sophistication but failed.

A third (and rather obscure) use of "affect" is found in psychotherapy. It refers to the set of emotions associated with an idea or mental state; e.g.

    In hysteria, the AFFECT is sometimes entirely dissociated.

In this third usage (only), the stress is on the first syllable, so it's pronounced AFF-ect.

The most common meaning of "effect" is result; e.g.

    The EFFECT was that the price doubled.

    That isn't the EFFECT we want.

    I don't know what the EFFECT of this will be.

Another meaning of "effect" is to cause or to produce; e.g.

    Through shrewd tactics, he EFFECTED a turnaround in sales.

    Upon taking the job, he EFFECTED sweeping reforms.

"Active" and "passive" voices made simple

"Active" and "passive" voices made simple

by

Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au

Open almost any book on grammar or writing skills, and you'll come across the advice "Use the active voice in preference to the passive voice".

Also, if you use Microsoft Word, you'll often get similar advice from its grammar checker.

Free of all the grammatical jargon, what does this mean?

Well, sentences written in the ACTIVE voice have the following structure:

    DO-ER  ACTION  RECEIVER

For example:

    John wrote the report.

   

    We misplaced your correspondence.

   

    The council reserved its decision.

   

    The ratepayer thanked him.

As you can see, sentences written in the active voice all start with the do-er of the action.

Sentences written in the PASSIVE voice, though, start with the receiver of the action:

    RECEIVER  ACTION  BY-WHOM

For example:

    The report was written by John.

   

    Your correspondence was misplaced by us.

   

    The decision was reserved by the Council.

   

    He was thanked by the ratepayer.

Okay, so we've made a distinction between the two. This brings us back to the traditional advice that it is preferable to write in the active voice rather than the passive voice.

Why?

The reason for this is that the active voice tends to sound simpler and more direct. Also, it often requires fewer words.

For example:

    The dog bit him.             [Active]

    He was bitten by the dog.    [Passive]

    We will send your goods within 14 days.          [Active]

    Your goods will be sent by us within 14 days.    [Passive]

Personally, I don't feel that the world is going to end if you write a few sentences in the passive voice now and then. Nonetheless, using the active voice in the majority of cases will improve your writing by making it simpler and more direct.

The passive voice does have one "advantage" though: it allows us leave out the do-er. Consider this alternative structure for passive sentences:

    RECEIVER  ACTION

    The report was written.               [By whom?]

   

    Your correspondence was misplaced.    [By whom?]

   

    The decision was reserved.            [By whom?]

   

    He was thanked.                       [By whom?]

By leaving out the do-er, the passive voice allows us to hide responsibility. It is thus much loved in government reports.  :-)

When we write in the active voice, though, we are forced to identify the do-er, and this eliminates a certain amount of evasion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You'll find many more helpful tips like these in Tim North's much applauded range of e-books. More information is available on his web site, and all books come with a money-back guarantee.

          http://www.scribe.com.au/ebooks.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Writing Tip : Abbreviations Made Easy

Abbreviations Made Easy
by
Tim North, http://www.scribe.com.au


Which is better usage: "USA" or "U.S.A.", "Mr" or "Mr."?

The punctuation of shortened forms likethese is an area that is subject to considerable differences of opinion. For example, as demonstrated by the examples above, not everyone agrees on when to use full stops.

It's an indication of just how confused this area is that even the basic terminology isn't agreed upon. You'd think that a simple term like abbreviation was easy to define, wouldn't you?

Sure you would, yet some camps distinguish between abbreviations and contractions (giving each different punctuation rules), while others lump everything in together as abbreviations.

  A common definition of "abbreviation" goes something like this:

    An abbreviation is a shortened version of a word or phrase
    and is often followed by a period. For example, c.o.d., ft-
    lb, St. or publ.

Unfortunately, there is rarely an explanation of what is meant by "often followed by a period". So we're left to wonder *when* does an abbreviation take a full stop, and when doesn't it?

Other sources do a better job of answering this question by distinguishing between abbreviations, which usually take a full stop, and contractions, which don't. Here's the difference between them:

    An ABBREVIATION is a shortened form of a word that does NOT
    include the full word's final letter. Abbreviations should be
    followed by a full stop.

    A CONTRACTION is a shortened form of a word that DOES include
    the full word's final letter. Contractions should not be
    followed by a full stop.

Here are some examples of abbreviations. Notice that they all omit the final letter of the full word and receive a full stop in its place:

    Tues.   Tuesday            approx.   approximately
    doz.    dozen              Aug.      August
    Prof.   Professor          Aust.     Australia
    a.m.    ante meridiem      p.m.      post meridiem
    i.e.    id est             e.g.      exempli gratia

Note that Latin examples like "e.g." are two separate abbreviations: "e." for "exempli" and "g." for "gratia". There are thus two full stops. Alternatives such as "eg." or "eg" are not consistent with our principle of following each abbreviation with a full stop.

  Here are some examples of contractions. Notice that they all include the final letter of the full word and are not followed by a full stop:

    Rd      Road               govt     government
    dept    department         ft       feet
    Mr      Mister             mfg      manufacturing
    Dr      Doctor             Mme      Madame
    Pty     Proprietary        Ltd      Limited

Not everyone follows the guidelines presented in this article, although they are increasingly common. Still, in my view, distinguishing between abbreviations and contractions in this way is better than relying on the ambiguous definition quoted earlier that expects you to guess what "often followed by a period" means.

I hope you find this useful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
You'll find many more helpful tips like these in Tim North's much applauded range of e-books. More information is available on his web site, and all books come with a money-back guarantee.

      http://www.scribe.com.au/ebooks.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Writing Tip : "You and I" or "You and me"?

"You and I" or "You and me"?

Summary

This article explains when to say you and I and when to say you and me.

 
Consider the following sentence: You and I should have lunch.
 
Is the correct form of this sentence You and I ... or You and me ...? This is a common source of confusion in English.

 

Fortunately, there's an easy way to decide whether to use I or me in such sentences. All you have to do is drop the word you then try the sentence with I and me one at a time. For example:

• I should have lunch.
• Me should have lunch.

Clearly the preferred form in this case is I; thus, the original sentence was correct to use you and I.

 

Here's another example: He'll blame you and I. Drop the word you then try the sentence with I and me one at a time, like so:

• He'll blame I.
• He'll blame me.

You can see that the second of these is correct. This means that the original sentence should have been: He'll blame you and me.
 
Easy.

 

On a related note, when using phrases such as you and me, you and I or them and us, it has traditionally been considered courteous to place the reference to yourself last. For example, we prefer:

• He'll ask you and me later.

over:

• He'll ask me and you later.