Quick Grammar Question

[Riverdance]

I was under the impression that, if I have quotation marks and a comma, the comma always goes inside the quotation marks. Is this true, and is the following sentence consequently correct or not?

It not only clears your space of “stuff”, but lightens your
internal load as well.

One place I found says that:
The only exception is when that last little item enclosed in quotation marks is just a letter or a number, in which case the period or comma will go outside the closing quotation marks:

~The buried treasure was marked on the map with a large "X".

~The only grade that will satisfy her is an "A".

~On this scale, the highest ranking is a "1", not a "10".


I guess "stuff" isn't a single letter or number, but they give other examples in which quotation marks are used and no other punctuation at all, so I'm not sure.

Thanks Playground.

[JoshL]

In your example, the comma should be inside the quotes. The exceptions listed are sort of odd (I wouldn't put those in quotes to begin with).

[Inglenook]

If I recall correctly, commas inside emphatic quotation marks is a style issue. American style guides generally recommend commas inside, while British style guides say outside.

Inside feels wrong to me on some fundamental level, so I always stick them outside.

Someone's going to level a pedantic sneer in your direction no matter which style you choose, so I'd say just go with what feels natural and be consistent. :smallsmile:

[Riverdance]

If I recall correctly, commas inside emphatic quotation marks is a style issue. American style guides generally recommend commas inside, while British style guides say outside.

Inside feels wrong to me on some fundamental level, so I always stick them outside.

Someone's going to level a pedantic sneer in your direction no matter which style you choose, so I'd say just go with what feels natural and be consistent. :smallsmile:

Well that's nice to hear. Thanks, I'll do exactly that. :smallsmile:

[Kindablue]

I put the punctuation marks inside the quotation marks (because I think it looks cleaner), but it's not a strict rule either way. If you're writing an essay or something, just try to be consistent about which way you do it.

[snoopy13a]

Most American style guides, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, instruct writers to put commas and periods inside the quotation marks. This is not true of all punctuation. For example, semicolons go outside the quotation marks.

[Rawhide]

First, I strongly disagree with the American style of putting all those punctuation marks inside quotation marks, so I follow my own rules, which closely resemble the Australian/British styles.

My rules are as follows:
If it's a direct quote and you're not quoting a punctuation mark, but instead it is a punctuation mark for the sentence you are writing, put the punctuation mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks.
If it is a direct quote and you are quoting a punctuation mark, put it INSIDE the quotation marks.

[Kindablue]

First, I strongly disagree with the American style of putting all those punctuation marks inside quotation marks, so I follow my own rules, which closely resemble the Australian/British styles.

My rules are as follows:
If it's a direct quote and you're not quoting a punctuation mark, but instead it is a punctuation mark for the sentence you are writing, put the punctuation mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks.
If it is a direct quote and you are quoting a punctuation mark, put it INSIDE the quotation marks.

I would even write


What do you mean, "you people?"

[Rawhide]

I would even write

So, in other words, the person you are quoting asked a question, and the question was:

You people?

That's how it reads, that's why I don't do it. It's just messy and confusing. Much cleaner to put that question mark outside of the quotation marks.

[Kindablue]

It's just messy and confusing. Much cleaner to put that question mark outside of the quotation marks.

I've never had any complaints. Ideally, I don't use quotation marks at all, but if I have to use them I think it's easier to understand the sentence's meaning my way.

[razark]

If it's a direct quote and you're not quoting a punctuation mark, but instead it is a punctuation mark for the sentence you are writing, put the punctuation mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks.
If it is a direct quote and you are quoting a punctuation mark, put it INSIDE the quotation marks.
This is pretty much how I do it. Having worked with computers for a while, it makes sense, especially in a field where punctuation can have special meaning. There is a difference between

Did you type "<command>?"
and

Did you type "<command>"?.

[Rawhide]

I've never had any complaints. Ideally, I don't use quotation marks at all, but if I have to use them I think it's easier to understand the sentence's meaning my way.

Strongly disagree on easier to understand. Quotation marks indicate quotes and should only contain what has been quoted, American style be darned. Doing it the American way is confusing, particularly when you want to quote a quote (e.g. Did the original quote have that comma/period or not?)

[dps]

First, I strongly disagree with the American style of putting all those punctuation marks inside quotation marks, so I follow my own rules, which closely resemble the Australian/British styles.

My rules are as follows:
If it's a direct quote and you're not quoting a punctuation mark, but instead it is a punctuation mark for the sentence you are writing, put the punctuation mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks.
If it is a direct quote and you are quoting a punctuation mark, put it INSIDE the quotation marks.

I'm American, but I agree. If you're quoting something, anything that's part of the quote should be inside the quotation marks. Otherwise, it goes outside.

[Jimorian]

First, I strongly disagree with the American style of putting all those punctuation marks inside quotation marks, so I follow my own rules, which closely resemble the Australian/British styles.

My rules are as follows:
If it's a direct quote and you're not quoting a punctuation mark, but instead it is a punctuation mark for the sentence you are writing, put the punctuation mark OUTSIDE the quotation marks.
If it is a direct quote and you are quoting a punctuation mark, put it INSIDE the quotation marks.

This is pretty much how I do it as well (as an American). I do recognize that if I'm writing to a formal audience (for example, submitting a story to an editor), I'll follow the "correct" style. (I realize after writing the previous sentence that what I'm doing is basically following the rules for parentheticals when I use quote marks.)

The one exception al the time for me is attributions. Thus:

"This is pretty," she said.

So even though what she said is a complete sentence in itself, a period would feel wrong to me. And again, I'm not going to make a fiction editor believe I don't know this. So the bottom line is, "know your audience". :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

This is pretty much how I do it as well (as an American). I do recognize that if I'm writing to a formal audience (for example, submitting a story to an editor), I'll follow the "correct" style. (I realize after writing the previous sentence that what I'm doing is basically following the rules for parentheticals when I use quote marks.)

The one exception al the time for me is attributions. Thus:

"This is pretty," she said.

So even though what she said is a complete sentence in itself, a period would feel wrong to me. And again, I'm not going to make a fiction editor believe I don't know this. So the bottom line is, "know your audience". :smalltongue:

In that case, I would quote "This is pretty", without the full stop, then write a comma to keep the sentence flowing. As I just did.

[Juggling Goth]

In the original example, I'd say it depends on whether they're actually quotation marks or just inverted commas. If it's actual speech that you're quoting, a thing that someone you've identified said at a particular time, the punctuation goes on the inside. But it looks like this is just using inverted commas to indicate that this isn't normally a word that the writer would use, what's sometimes called 'scare quotes', which isn't the same as quoting direct speech. (I distinguish these by using " for quoted speech and ' for scare quotes, although most things I read tend to do it the other way around.) In that case, it's treated as a normal sentence, and the punctuation goes on the outside.

"Scare quotes," Juggling Goth said.

-versus-

What's sometimes called 'scare quotes', which isn't the same.

Because sod's law is a constant of the universe, I make so many typing and syntax errors when I'm talking about grammar. I can't even.

Ultimately, punctuation is there to clarify matters and keep separate ideas where they ought to be. ("Let's eat, Grandma!" versus "Let's eat Grandma!") If your sentence makes sense, and only has one interpretation, you're doing it right. I'm really not happy with the grammar in that particular set of parentheses - I don't like the way the sentence-ender for the discrete bit in the second quotation marks also has to serve for the whole external sentence, which I would prefer to end on a full stop - but it makes sense, so I'm gonna leave it.

[Rawhide]

For me, and again this is my style, not necessarily a formal style rule, I would do different things for the following phrases (this is assuming we want to put the person's name after cradle, not before the quote entirely):

"The cat's in the cradle."
becomes
"The cat's in the cradle", she said.

"The cat's in the cradle, with the silver spoon."
becomes
"The cat's in the cradle," she said, "with the silver spoon".
or
"The cat's in the cradle," she said, "with the silver spoon."

The latter is dependent on if I decide to quote the period or not, as that depends on context, my intent, and any potential confusion (e.g. If the next sentence starts with a word that always has a capital letter and doesn't go in a new paragraph).

[Eldonauran]

I always put punctuation outside of quotes.

You "rang"?

What do you mean, "you people"?

This was the way I was instructed in school and I see no reason to change it. I am not a grammar nazi, I won't critique how someone writes but, like most people, I can't resist the first impulse of :smallannoyed: when I see poorly written language.

Language is an art form.