When I was at school, and later at college, the tutors would insist all punctuation marks fell within the quotation marks:
"Look, there's plenty for both of us," she said.
I would never agree, instead leaving them outside where I felt they belonged. This was more logical:
"Look, there's plenty for both of us", she said.
British style now prefers to punctuate according to the sense, and the second example would be correct.
I was right all along 😏
Originally posted by dottewellAgreed. I'd be castigated if I employed the second approach (part of my job is writing news stories). I'm not sure why that it is though. Is it because the quotation marks refer to speech rather than simply a sort of 'identification' as in Rwingett's post? Otherwise, what is the reason that the British preference is to place the punctuation inside the quotation marks in Bowmann's example, but to place it outside in Rwingett's example? Anyone know? Should Rwingett have referred to 'lose' and 'loose' as 'lose' and 'loose', rather than as "lose" and "loose"?
No, it doesn't. The second would be considered wrong by 99.9 per cent of publishers in Britain (not including Bolton).
Originally posted by T1000Yes, I will grant you that one. The single marks would have been more proper.
Agreed. I'd be castigated if I employed the second approach (part of my job is writing news stories). I'm not sure why that it is though. Is it because the quotation marks refer to speech rather than simply a sort of 'identification' as in Rwingett's post? Otherwise, what is the reason that the British preference is to place the punctuation inside the quotatio ...[text shortened]... 'lose' and 'loose' as 'lose' and 'loose', rather than as "lose" and "loose"?
Originally posted by rwingettI say we change it to loose and looze
I can't tell you how many idiots there are out there who make this mistake.
To get beaten at a game of chess is to "lose" the game. Not loose.
When your pants fall down it's because they're too "loose."
That, my friends, is the difference between "lose" and "loose." Get it right.
Originally posted by BowmannI think the quotation marks alone would cause you pause. So I say why waste the ink just leave the comma off. (Consrvitive think tanking)
When I was at school, and later at college, the tutors would insist all punctuation marks fell within the quotation marks:
[b]"Look, there's plenty for both of us," she said.
I would never agree, instead leaving them outside where I felt they belonged. This was more logical:
"Look, there's plenty for both of us", she said.
...[text shortened]... cording to the sense, and the second example would be correct.
I was right all along 😏[/b]
Quotation marks indicate that something if being referred to -- the referee is exactly that which is inside of them. For example, dialogue in a narrative generally puts the punctuation inside the quotation mark, unless the speaker does not use punctuation when speaking. However, if I am referring to the word ''aardvark'', I say ''My favourite word is ''aardvark''.''.