It's words like 'grandiloquent' that keep my writing grandiloquent: comments on style and the shortcommings of education in this country.
If you've read this blog or any other writing of mine, you'll know that I'm a big fan of parenthetical statements and odd (you might call it 'wrong' (or 'absolutely correct', depending on where you're reading this from)) punctuation. Within this first realm, I'm particularly keen on two things—parenthetical statements within actual parentheses, and parenthetical statements within other parenthetical statements (see directly above (or right here)).
In formal writing of all kinds, parentheses are scarce. I like the comma and love the em dash, but I think parentheses keep things conversational (which is how I like to keep things a lot of the time). Even in first-person writing, parentheses (to me, at least) really let the narrator's voice shine through (and if the narrator's voice is distractingly disjointed, so be it). Outside of this sentence, I make no special effort to do so; it's just how I think, how I talk (I suppose it's actually pretty hard to speak in layered parenthetical statements, and I'm not sure if I really do—I just included it to make this thought flow (which I've effectively negated by including this layered parenthetical statement (see, here's three in one!) for demonstration purposes)), and how I write.
And as far as odd stylistic rules go, I'm obviously a big proponent of keeping punctuation outside of quotations (when applicable). I know it has been drilled into you for years that quotations enclose the punctuation, but this is just one of those crazy only-in-America rules that shouldn't be followed (any rule, anywhere, should be assessed and respected on the basis of why it was enacted and why it is enforced—in this case, it has to do with typesetters and printing presses, so it's obviously okay to forget about). This website has a good overview of some intuitive and understandable usage guidelines as practiced in the United Kingdom (where English was invented, which adds a bit if credence to their expertise), and it also does a good job of summing up my main point: "In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic."
In the sentence above, the period ('full stop', if we're keeping things British) is quoted because it appeared in the original sentence. If I wasn't actually going to quote the period, I wouldn't quote it (sounds simple, right?): "In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks". I wanted to quote the whole sentence, though, because "regardless of logic" is the part that I have the biggest problem with.
In the end, it's all representative of a big shortfall of education in this country: inflexibility. Whether it's clinging to antiquated prosaic style or holding out against the metric system, it's clear that we're bigger fans of familiarity than of breaking with tradition for the sake of reason. I say: to hell with tradition, and long live the exaltation of practicality.
In formal writing of all kinds, parentheses are scarce. I like the comma and love the em dash, but I think parentheses keep things conversational (which is how I like to keep things a lot of the time). Even in first-person writing, parentheses (to me, at least) really let the narrator's voice shine through (and if the narrator's voice is distractingly disjointed, so be it). Outside of this sentence, I make no special effort to do so; it's just how I think, how I talk (I suppose it's actually pretty hard to speak in layered parenthetical statements, and I'm not sure if I really do—I just included it to make this thought flow (which I've effectively negated by including this layered parenthetical statement (see, here's three in one!) for demonstration purposes)), and how I write.
And as far as odd stylistic rules go, I'm obviously a big proponent of keeping punctuation outside of quotations (when applicable). I know it has been drilled into you for years that quotations enclose the punctuation, but this is just one of those crazy only-in-America rules that shouldn't be followed (any rule, anywhere, should be assessed and respected on the basis of why it was enacted and why it is enforced—in this case, it has to do with typesetters and printing presses, so it's obviously okay to forget about). This website has a good overview of some intuitive and understandable usage guidelines as practiced in the United Kingdom (where English was invented, which adds a bit if credence to their expertise), and it also does a good job of summing up my main point: "In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic."
In the sentence above, the period ('full stop', if we're keeping things British) is quoted because it appeared in the original sentence. If I wasn't actually going to quote the period, I wouldn't quote it (sounds simple, right?): "In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks". I wanted to quote the whole sentence, though, because "regardless of logic" is the part that I have the biggest problem with.
In the end, it's all representative of a big shortfall of education in this country: inflexibility. Whether it's clinging to antiquated prosaic style or holding out against the metric system, it's clear that we're bigger fans of familiarity than of breaking with tradition for the sake of reason. I say: to hell with tradition, and long live the exaltation of practicality.
posted by Peter at
8:00 AM
5 Comments:
I can't decide if I agree with you on this one (this one of course being the punctuation placement (as opposed to layering parentheticals)). For parentheticals, punctuation should definitely go outside. For quotations, though, I'm more skeptical. I think that the example you give is misleading. I think proper style calls for breaking up quotations only where there is punctuation anyway.
We'll say a woman says, "We must pray quietly for our father's health."
To write that as:
"We must pray quietly", she said, "for our father's health."
would just be stylistically weird. I think that that informal style rule takes care of that particular example.
When you want to end a sentence with a quotation that doesn't contain a period, you can do it like this:
"In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks..."
The only reason I'm not saying that I disagree with you is that I'm sure there are situations where the rule does obfuscate meaning (because I know I've thought about it before). But, right now I can't think of a good example with quotations.
PS, I also think that it is just aesthetically pleasing to put the period inside, but apparently that makes me a conservative:
Some people insist that '."' and ',"' LOOK better, but Fowler calls them "really mere conservatives, masquerading only as aesthetes".
I love that they quoted those as they wrote, just to confuse the reader (whereas I omitted the quotes around the whole quoted section because I felt they would reduce clarity).
I don't see how the example you call "stylistically weird" is stylistically weird. My rule of thumb is basic: don't introduce or omit punctuation when quoting--only quote it if it's actually there.
Also, I've gotten the 'aesthetically pleasing' line from other people I've talked to about this, and I couldn't disagree more. You only feel this way because you've been indoctrinated by English teachers for years and years and you're suffering from some weird grammatical Stockholm syndrome. Periods end sentences, and there should be little exception to this very aesthetically pleasing and functional rule.
we use quotes to strengthen arguments, and i feel that we should be able to adjust the "facts" as we see fit. since america is a highly egocentric country, to hell with what the brits want and teach. we might not have invented the language, but we have certainly made it better. fo sho.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home