M
Michael Wojcik
[Followups should probably be directed to alt.usage.english, but I'm
not currently reading that group, and I feel it's rude to direct
followups to a group in which I'm not a participant.]
The first rule of English usage: there are no rules of English
usage. There is no English standard (generally recognized by a
majority of English users). There are only conventions, and they
vary widely.
That said:
IME, among people who care about such things, Chuck's usage (with
the period) is currently more widely preferred. This would accord
with both "scientific" punctuation (the question mark applies only
to the phrase in quotation marks, so the enclosing sentence has not
been properly terminated yet) and "natural" punctuation (the
enclosing statement is a declaration, not a question, so it should
end with a period).
There is a style of some popularity - we might label it the "spare"
style - which tends to discourage punctuation wherever it can get
away with it; this is the style which discourages the comma before
the penultimate item in a list. I think it's dreadful, personally.
On what grounds? Certainly a colon is not wholly inappropriate,
but it is far more common in contemporary preferred English usage
to separate a direct quotation from the enclosing sentence with a
comma, as Joona did.
Now, as Chuck suggested, it is also common (and I believe becoming
more common) to omit the comma in some cases. This is particularly
true in the "natural" style, which would use a comma only if the
author would pause at that point if reading the sentence aloud. In
effect this generally means that the comma is omitted if both the
enclosing sentence and the quoted phrase are relatively short, and
the enclosing sentence flows into the quoted phrase well.
Of course "flows" and "well" are subjective, as is "relatively
short". Such are the difficulties of describing style - proscribing
it is even worse. This is one reason why "style manuals" like
Strunk & White often do more harm than good. On the other hand,
books about English usage which discuss topics in a reasoned manner
rather than trying to lay down rules, such as Fowler's, are often
both interesting and useful.
--
Michael Wojcik (e-mail address removed)
They had forgathered enough of course in all the various times; they had
again and again, since that first night at the theatre, been face to face
over their question; but they had never been so alone together as they were
actually alone - their talk hadn't yet been so supremely for themselves.
-- Henry James
not currently reading that group, and I feel it's rude to direct
followups to a group in which I'm not a participant.]
)> Well, I saw a block of text and thought, "Does someone with a BS
)> write that way?" Then I decided not to take the bait.
) ^
CBFalconer wrote:
) Here there be missing a period. Just to continue the silly
) picking of infinitesimal nits. The second comma is also highly
) unnecessary. We can leave further comment to the next nit
) harvester.
The first rule of English usage: there are no rules of English
usage. There is no English standard (generally recognized by a
majority of English users). There are only conventions, and they
vary widely.
That said:
I don't know, the question mark may count as a period there.
IME, among people who care about such things, Chuck's usage (with
the period) is currently more widely preferred. This would accord
with both "scientific" punctuation (the question mark applies only
to the phrase in quotation marks, so the enclosing sentence has not
been properly terminated yet) and "natural" punctuation (the
enclosing statement is a declaration, not a question, so it should
end with a period).
There is a style of some popularity - we might label it the "spare"
style - which tends to discourage punctuation wherever it can get
away with it; this is the style which discourages the comma before
the penultimate item in a list. I think it's dreadful, personally.
And the second comma should actually be a colon.
On what grounds? Certainly a colon is not wholly inappropriate,
but it is far more common in contemporary preferred English usage
to separate a direct quotation from the enclosing sentence with a
comma, as Joona did.
Now, as Chuck suggested, it is also common (and I believe becoming
more common) to omit the comma in some cases. This is particularly
true in the "natural" style, which would use a comma only if the
author would pause at that point if reading the sentence aloud. In
effect this generally means that the comma is omitted if both the
enclosing sentence and the quoted phrase are relatively short, and
the enclosing sentence flows into the quoted phrase well.
Of course "flows" and "well" are subjective, as is "relatively
short". Such are the difficulties of describing style - proscribing
it is even worse. This is one reason why "style manuals" like
Strunk & White often do more harm than good. On the other hand,
books about English usage which discuss topics in a reasoned manner
rather than trying to lay down rules, such as Fowler's, are often
both interesting and useful.
--
Michael Wojcik (e-mail address removed)
They had forgathered enough of course in all the various times; they had
again and again, since that first night at the theatre, been face to face
over their question; but they had never been so alone together as they were
actually alone - their talk hadn't yet been so supremely for themselves.
-- Henry James