623:. They are not computer variables or chemistry formulas, but they nonetheless require precision, accuracy and lack of ambiguity to serve their intended purpose and to not mislead readers or misrepresent the truth. Encyclopedia writing is, emphatically, a form of technical writing; to borrow from legal scholar Ronald B. Standler, it is, like legal writing, "a type of scholarly writing by an educated person", to which general guidelines for technical and essay writing (as contrasted with journalism, editorializing, PR and fiction) necessarily apply. See also the following statement in a post on a language blog of observations on British and American English by an American linguist in the UK: "Other things that make some (uses of) language arguably better than others are consistency within the system (e.g. in spelling) and avoidance of ambiguity." The piece never even mentions quotation style, but it says in a nutshell what the MOS exists for in our project.
799:" to some subset of editors/readers. And it is a subset; to users of LQ around the world, TQ looks weird, as LQ does to TQ fans. There is no infallible Holy Measure of Typographic Loveliness. Roy Peter Clark, writing for the Poynter Institute, the journalism school in St. Petersburg, Florida, gently satirizes the aesthetic camp, in a 2007 tongue-in-cheek piece about British and American English: "I hate it the way leave punctuation outside quotation marks. Periods and commas look so cold and lonely out there. I think they deserve to be brought inside, comforted and embraced." As Clark tells us, in mocking his own and his American colleagues preferences (see the rest of the piece; it gets even more arch), whims like this are not the basis a reasoned system of punctuation, they're simply familiar. It's a matter of inertia, not reason.
876:, shows (from an editorial perspective – it's not a controlled study from a language science institute or anything) that in actual practice, hardly anyone but American professional editors and journalists enforces TQ any longer, and its use by the general American populace is on the notably rapid decline, because it's confusing and irrational (which again, are reasons enough, even if all this other evidence didn't exist, for Knowledge (XXG) to prefer LQ). While the argument can be made that text messaging and e-mail are leading to a general erosion of language skills, the article is addressing general usage, not just tweets and Facebook posts. Yagoda has been characterized as not just vehemently critical of the Internet's and other communications technology's erosive effects on language, but (in the same January 2011 piece in
934:, to support an allegedly regional peculiarity that: a) leads inevitably to misquotation and other errors, by its very nature; b) is confusing to most of the world (not just the English-speaking world; mandatory internal TQ-style punctuation of quotations is unknown in other languages); c) is not even supported by all readers and editors in the area in which it has been wishfully but falsely promoted as "universal"; d) is deprecated in much technical, scientific, philosophy, and textual-analysis writing (and sometimes legal and even journalistic writing, though uncommonly) by the very Americans and Canadians who would normally use it (and WP
1042:
searching easier, and makes it much easier to edit the encyclopedia, the wiki-markup of which makes heavy use of strings of single-quote/apostrophe characters for markup. We use straight rather than curly quotation marks not for "geek chic" or because of laziness, but because curly quotes interfere with search results, cannot be typed without specialized knowledge of key combinations, and lead to mismatched quotation marks after various editors have worked on a text, some using curly quotes and some not bothering, which is another readability and parseability issue. Knowledge (XXG) uses periods (stops) after everyday abbreviations like
590:
passes, albeit a bit more explicitly, by suggesting that
American writers simply follow American style guides and British and Commonwealth writers follow British, as if that magically solved everything. He concludes that TQ "while imperfect, works perfectly well if you follow a few simple rules." But it clearly doesn't. It works perfectly well, most of the time, for novels and comic books and high school essays, but it quietly fails in journalism, to the frequent misrepresentation of quoted interviewees, and fails dismally and obviously in technical, scientific, and encyclopedic works, where precision is crucial.
835:). It says very clearly in its style guide: "13.5.1Â Â In American usage printers usually place a period or comma inside closing quotation marks whether it belongs logically to the quoted matter or to the whole sentence or context.... But when a logical or exact distinction is desired in specialized work in which clarity is more important than usual (as in this dictionary), a period or comma can be placed outside quotation marks when it belongs not in the quoted matter but to a larger unit containing the quoted matter. The package is labeled 'Handle with Care'." Knowledge (XXG), like
919:, that it's not actually particularly American at all in mass-market publishing, and that the practice is on the decline anyway, as recognized by American linguistics and journalism institutions. Indeed, the only real evidence that TQ is particularly American are American style guides, which don't agree with one another on innumerable points, proving they are not intrinsically reliable, and which have a blatant profit motive in polarizing debate so that Americans will buy their American style guides rather than Oxford's (and a latent political motivation that dates back to
779:(MLA), publishers of one of the most-used style guides for academic writing, suggests that TQ was actually developed "to improve the appearance of the text. A comma or period that follows a closing quotation mark appears to hang off by itself and creates a gap in the line (since the space over the mark combines with the following word space)." Even if this were true, as opposed to or even in addition to the "movable type bits" story preferred by Johnson, above, it's irrelevant for Knowledge (XXG) purposes, per piles of precedent like
907:, in American English and only American English, and nothing but TQ is correct in American English – in which case the obvious MOS response is that WP is free to prescribe in-house as suits its own needs, since prescription is arbitrary and contextual, not determined by "authorities" external to the context of the prescription; meanwhile all evidence points to these assertions about TQ being overstatements to begin with. But TQ boosterism simultaneously advances a descriptivist argument – WP
127:
the failing position that punctuation is a nationalistic matter (this, after all, certainly helps to sell grammar books and to entrench and patrioticize views on grammar, which in turn sells yet more grammar books). There are differences between logical quotation and conventional
British punctuation in mass-market publications, many of which do not agree with one another. Knowledge (XXG) itself has been criticized in the British press for asserting that LQ is British.
387:, the pre-eminent linguistics publication in the world. The journal uses LQ, as does the organization's website, and all their other publications. On quotation formatting, the journal's style guide says "The second member of a pair of quotation marks should precede any other adjacent mark of punctuation, unless the other mark is a necessary part of the quoted matter: The word means 'cart', not 'horse'. He asked, 'What can we hypothesize about this example?
952:
extraneous punctuation inside literal strings, with unpredictable types and numbers of resultant errors (probably most often incorrect search matching, but many others are possible and likely). This is not acceptable, as one of the major goals of
Knowledge (XXG) and all Wikimedia Foundation projects is that the content be as reusable and repurposable in as many ways as possible, and this problem is actually worse than it seems because the
616:" It is entirely ambiguous under TQ whether the period (dot, full stop, full point, whatever one wants to call ".") after "rm" is part of the command, and with the period the command does not work. For a real-world example of how seriously this is taken in technical writing circles, see a bug report about the Ubuntu Linux manual having a stray case of TQ, and it is being fixed to LQ format.
347:
contributions from writers internationally, like other academic journals. They assume academic writers know better, and that
American academics in particular know that even if they personally prefer TQ, as many American editors do, that it isn't a logical system and is not acceptable in academic publishing, only journalism and fiction, outside the US, and decreasingly within. The
1021:, etc. exist to re-educate incoming encyclopedists in how to not write like a newspaper editorialist (and the rest, not like a schoolchild essayist). To be fair, often snarky British sport and tabloid journalism has also had marked negative influences on encyclopedic writing here, especially in biographical articles; it's not all a Western Hemisphere flow.
165:, for example, says "Place full points and commas inside the quotes for a complete quoted sentence; otherwise the point comes outside." This is not the same as logical quotation at all (which is not concerned with sentence structure, but with literalness), and is little better than TQ's opposite insistence on always putting the punctuation inside. In fact,
339:"British", they call it "logical quotation" not "British quotation". The ISS simply explains why things are quoted the way they are, from the same reasoned encyclopedic viewpoint as Knowledge (XXG). As we will see below, even TQ proponents actually follow this reasoning, half of the time (and the rest of the time admit that their system is illogical). The
283:) long accepted LQ. See the details in the reader letter cited, by the way, showing that the US legal profession's own main style guide was actually inconsistent on the matter in its recommendation of TQ. The ABA itself explicitly stated "We still prefer the logical system of punctuation" in the previous issue. And this happened all the way back in
807:
mostly supporters of LQ (what other "Other" could there be in a binary issue?), yields a supermajority of 66% who are at least not objecting to LQ; including only half of those votes would still raise LQ to a 52.5% majority. Among journos. In the US. American reporters use TQ because their editors do it, and their editors do it because the
671:. Please re-read that sentence. Nichol, the anti-LQ American grammarian, acknowledges that LQ has to be used sometimes, and gives cases "such as precisely framing philosophical or etymological terms by excluding punctuation that is part of the general narrative". He blissfully misses or not very craftily dodges the obvious point that
24:
763:. The simple facts of the matter are that as of the post-computer, post-Internet world, there is no such thing as an authoritative style guide for the English language. Even the most respected ones in any particular dialect disagree with one another, and they cannot keep up with actual usage. Citing them like laws is an exercise in
391:" And realize that this is an organization devoted to language preservation, one that publishes policy statements like "The Need for the Documentation of Linguistic Diversity". This makes one necessarily skeptical of the claim that promotion of LQ is somehow an attack on US language values and the integrity of American English.
91:
989:, a British paper that does not use TQ, relates that the journalists he works with are actually trained to avoid the use of partial quotations, as sloppy. American reporters certainly aren't, and are routinely browbeaten by editors to aim for as much concision as possible even at the expense of clarity (American headlines are
806:
by its wording and by providing no pro-LQ answer, only "I care not at all" and "Other"! A large number of the comments on the poll were in favor of LQ, and 41% of poll respondents clearly indicated acceptance of LQ (grudging or neutral). Counting the large 23% bloc who voted "Other", almost certainly
521:
thing that is correct, in
American English, "universally", are flatly incorrect, as shown by citations provided above and below, e.g. to major US-based publications preferring logical quotation, and an American English professor showing that TQ is declining. Just from one afternoon's Googling around.
412:
different, and have been recognized as such for around a century now, since Fowler & Fowler? It becomes clearer and clearer that the (declining but still notable) US predilection for TQ even when it makes no sense is only explicable as simple tradition and status-quo inertia, arising from
America
201:
All of this further erodes the notion that logical quotation is used on
Knowledge (XXG) as some kind of bone thrown to British Wikipedians. Logical quotation is its own style, as required by various journals, and documented in style guides for more than 100 years. It coincidentally happens to be very
126:
among other names) is "American style" (despite having originated in
England, and being as common in Canada as in the US). This error of overgeneralization is often promoted by published style guidelines, out of ignorance, a wish to "keep it simple", and/or even an attempt to add illusory strength to
984:
As an aside, given that journalism is heavily quotation-based, yet TQ has a strong tendency to misrepresent quotations, it's clear that in fact many journalistic editors don't but certainly should care about LQ, especially given that TQ, as we know, is actually spreading from North
American to other
890:
essay was "the most e-mailed and most read article on the whole site." Interestingly, Poynter.org's own coverage of the Yagoda piece and similar articles was originally titled "It's now OK to put commas and periods outside of quotation marks" (Jim
Romenesko, May 13, 2011); the title it was published
534:
The entire Johnson passage is really just multiple blatant admissions that TQ is illogical. That in itself is enough to simply ignore TQ on Knowledge (XXG), for the same reason we would ignore calling the sky "green" just because some books by some people with opinions to express said we should call
444:
The attribution has been moved to the end of the sentence, and the quotation is separated from the attribution by a comma, as required by Rule 2-11. But why is the comma inside the closing quotation mark? Certainly the comma is not part of the quotation; the speaker naturally ended his sentence with
899:
statement, and the text of Romenesko's notice has a similar tone. Not quite what one would expect from a premier United States journalism institution, if one is insisting that TQ is always American style, or surely always American journalism style, or even just always journalism style generally. TQ
599:
The vast majority of computer and other technical manuals in English are produced in the United States, and the vast majority of them, again, use LQ, or where they insist on TQ are very careful to avoid any construction that can be ambiguous because of the quotation style (a prose issue about which
153:
Logical quotation style and the quotation styles used in many British publications (and others that follow their style guides) are often actually different, based on different rationales. In particular, British usages (yes, they are plural) tend to put punctuation outside of quotations even when it
1049:
We use logical quotation not because it is British (it isn't) but because it has a logical basis, and correctly reports the literally quoted material, reduces reader uncertainty and confusion, makes editing easier and less contentious by providing one style to follow regardless of national ties of
658:
further propounds "never alter a quote".) Similar flux and conflict is happening in the sphere of non-American stylebooks, too. There is no united, or even stationary, authority on English style, nor on American or British English style specifically. Everything is a moving target. Singling out one
589:
It all avoids the issue. Johnson wrote only about American English, and simply never noticed (or never cared to comment) on the fact that TQ isn't just illogical, but results in misrepresentation, misquotation, and confusion as to what the original source actually said/read. Nichol also dodges and
558:
further concedes that TQ is not just contradictory, it's actually leaning toward LQ anyway: "he traditional American system is inconsistent: Place commas and periods inside quotation marks, but semicolons and colons go outside. Em dashes, question marks, and exclamation points go inside or outside
366:
But back to American sources. The "smoking gun", as it were, would have to be a professionally produced academic journal from a notable US-based organization that is not a hardcore techie or science rag but a liberal arts, soft-science group, requiring logical quotation, despite such organizations
291:
typographic system in the 1950s and adopting logical quotation for exactly the same rationale as Knowledge (XXG): LQ style produces more precise quotations. (The ABA eventually adopted TQ, because the US courts started mandating precise document formatting requirements, and they mostly based their
130:
Neither style is consistently used in the US or the UK. Erroneous partisanship is generally detrimental to understanding logical quotation, typesetters' quotation, their contexts, and the preference of Knowledge (XXG) and of an increasing number of other academic publications for logical quotation
951:
Another major problem caused by TQ, less immediately apparent than reader confusion and source misquotation, is data pollution at the machine-readable level. TQ forces incorrect data to be parsed by software that works on Knowledge (XXG) article content and makes novel use of it, due to including
942:
textual analisys); e) is admitted to be illogical and arbitrary by its own supporters; and f) isn't long for this world anyway except probably in fiction (where some believe it "scans" faster). It simply isn't worth considering any longer at Knowledge (XXG) (and it's been considered and rejected
526:
issue, no matter how much pundits like Johnson have tried to cast it as one, and despite common belief, repeated in various style guides, that one is "British" and the other "American". That idea is now conclusively shown to be a myth. American language usage writer David Nichol at the well-read
338:
says this in their style guide: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation." Note that they not only explain how it is to be done, which would seem unnecessary if LQ "is"
675:
punctuation that is not part of the literal original written quote, or part of the sense of the original spoken quote, is in fact just "part of the general narrative" rather than part of the "precisely fram" quotation. And thanks to that writer for providing strength to the pro-LQ rationale at
1041:
and many other non-American publishers also use this order), or look better, or any other subjective reason. We do it because they are more easily distinguished from other punctuation like apostrophes, and this in turn aids the reader, enables better software processing of our content, makes
106:
matter. Using logical quotation in articles in American English is not "bad grammar", but supported by major journals, and increasing in use in the general populace. Typesetters' quotation is a loose, ambiguous style common in fiction and journalism and is not suited to encyclopedic writing.
346:
more succinctly yet says: "Within a quotation use the spelling and punctuation of the original.... If omitting material from a quotation, use three ellipsis points". The style is not labelled, but it says nothing at all about "Australian" or "British" or "American" style, despite accepting
225:
Innumerable cases like this are also found in Irish, South African, Australian, and other non-North American, English-language publications. This proves that TQ is not "American" despite being more common in North America. It is simply common in informal, journalistic prose (and in fiction
237:
and BBC News's online versions have been consulted and do not even address the issue (though we already know that the BBC uses TQ regularly), suggesting that the TQ/LQ distinction is not considered very important in non-US journalism, even though it certainly should be, for accuracy.
1029:
Naturally, we try to honor as many of them as possible, but only up to a point. Where they conflict with each other, we have to make a decision one way or another, based on various factors, especially simplicity, clarity, and logic. We usually leave spelling and vocabulary up to
971:
The pro-TQ view may suggest that it's all trivia anyway and that readers can easily make out what is meant regardless of the quotation style. If this were actually true, we would not see the vast majority of the world using and recommending logical quotation or the "British"
449:
In the days of handset type—so the story goes—printers discovered that a period or comma hanging out at the end of a sentence after a quotation mark was easily knocked awry, and they solved the problem by putting the period or comma within the closing quotation mark
964:, where extraneous punctuation is put inside book titles and other italicized or boldfaced phrases simply because confused editors think that, because the forms are superficially similar, the formats must be the same. See pre-cleanup version of the WP article
1075:
He concludes that while such establishments will stick to their "traditional rules", that they like to think of as "official", in favor of TQ, that "hat's likely is a more and more pronounced separation" and that eventually "everyone else will follow logic".
458:
of the quotation mark is the universal American convention. For some reason, an apostrophe at the end of a sentence was permitted to stay inside the period, perhaps because apostrophes were considered part of the spelling of words and inseparable from them.
976:) minor variations on it, and we would not see an increased trend of its use in North America, against supposedly deeply-ingrained TQ style. If we force our audience to have to work out what we're trying to tell them, we are failing as writers.
1034:, but not deeper grammar issues, including punctuation. Where third-party stylebooks' grammar pronouncements conflict with our goals, our decision is clear: we ignore them, and promulgate our own internal rules, with Wikipedian rationales.
706:
convey tightly controlled meaning. Besides, Knowledge (XXG) regularly ignores external sources' arbitrary style "rules" when they don't make sense or interfere with encyclopedic clarity. Take for example, this stylebook recommendation from
886:(NOOB). If Yagoda, of all people, observes a distinctly American trend toward LQ and is neither alarmed by it nor dismissive of it as just a trendy Britishism, that seems more than slightly noteworthy. Two days after publication, his
562:
Perhaps most importantly, it explains that typesetters' punctuation is (so far as we know, but see below for the "aesthetic story") a convention of, well, typesetters. TQ is thus of no relevance to an online encyclopedia, and per
662:
And what of this "rule"? Even prescriptive-grammarian proponents of TQ admit that exceptions have to be made when using it, indicating that it is flawed, meanwhile exceptions never have to be made for logical quotation. The
641:
guide is seeing a new edition every few years now, with major changes. Here's another piece on the AP Stylebook changing so frequently (often in ways that conflict with most other style guides, e.g. encouraging the spelling
814:
TQ fandom will still insist that, regardless of logic, regardless of precision, regardless of changing usage, regardless of proof that American publications sometimes use LQ and British ones sometimes use TQ, regardless of
1895:
Handbook for newspaper workers, treating grammar, punctuation, English, diction, journalistic structure, typographical style, accuracy, headlines, proofreading, copyreading, type, cuts, libel, and other matters of office
1066:
Despite the love it gets from the masses, logical punctuation isn't likely to break through to the rule-keepers any time soon. The old way is just too established. When I asked Feal and Carol Saller, who oversees the
839:, is patently just such a "specialized work in which clarity is more important than usual", and direct quotations are precisely the place we want "a logical or exact distinction" to be drawn. It's important to note that
254:
in Canada, insists on logical quotation. This is proof that it is not just used in the sciences, and proof that it is not exclusively British, nor even non–North American, and thus it is further evidence this is not an
169:
often ends up with copy that is identical to common American practice. This is because the newspaper, and various other British Commonwealth ones, avoid inserting punctuation where there was none in the original, but
531:, who is vehemently opposed to LQ in American English (except when admitting, darn, that it sometimes does have to be used; see below) concedes: "This system is quite common, of course, even in formal publications."
915:, and it's discriminatory against Americans to "force" LQ – in which case the MOS answer is that actual observation and description show that this is not universally the case, only in mass-market publishing, which
676:
Knowledge (XXG), for noting accidentally that the entire purpose of quotation is "precise framing". Precision, to say it again, is the No. 1 reason for using LQ in formal, nit-picky writing like an encyclopedia.
667:(surely the #1 reason that TQ even still exists) says – since at least the 15th edition, and continuing in the 17th (current as of 2018) – not to use TQ for things like examples of computer commands, and even
399:
Isn't it, even aside from all the other evidence presented above and below, just a bit more reasonable to consider that LQ and TQ are not "proper British" and "correct American" style, respectively, like
654:, which generally promotes AP style, also warns "Do not assume AP style is appropriate for academic writing — it isn't." (Hint: encyclopedia writing is, emphatically, a form of academic writing. And
2204:
194:
has a different rationale entirely, calling for quotations that follow a colon to have internal punctuation, and those without a colon having external punctuation (in effect, this usually mirrors
2161:
178:
for the original period (and TQ would do it this way simply because it always puts commas inside). This is invalid in logical punctuation because it is a falsification of the literal quotation.
141:. This principle is not unique to Knowledge (XXG), but mirrored in most style guides (even if it necessarily becomes confused and self-contradictory in those that continue to recommend TQ). The
1997:
174:
readily swap a comma for a period (point): "The MP said 'He's a prat,' in reference to Lord Spottswoode." Here the comma after "prat" is inside the terminal quotation mark because it is
574:
Furthermore, reliance on a source whose backing simply boils down to "it's just the way it is", as a reliable reference for one's own on-wiki opinion that "it's just the way it is", is
210:
Here's one example, out of literally millions, of British professional journalism using typesetters' quotation, from a BBC News article on the death of a Hiberno-British sports figure:
1387:
1163:
301:
The idea of logical quotation (and even the term itself) being some kind of neologistic imposition is absurd. The term actually goes back at least as far as H. W. & F. G. Fowler's
650:) that updates about it are posted on Facebook and Twitter, with 80,000 journalists and other writers following the posts in an attempt to keep up. The Generalized Stylebook of the
2262:
1050:
the subject, and reduces citation errors and misquotation. Even American editors may prefer it here for its clarity, despite being far more familiar with typesetter's quotation.
497:
Johnson's influential and still-oft-cited piece is the probable main inspiration for TQ's continued (though increasingly qualified) support in so many American style guides like
993:
for their frequent nonsensicality). The influence of mostly-American journalistic practices on Knowledge (XXG) articles is palpable and negative. Large parts of guidelines like
691:
a comma, or a period, regardless of context" (emphasis in original) and gives various conflicting examples of terminal punctuation being handled both logically and illogically.
298:
which is all TQ, all the time. So, today US legal-writing practice has become overwhelmingly TQ; not because the profession preferred it, but because bureaucrats overrode them.
119:
For clarification, "typesetters' quotation" means the rule that a comma or period always precedes a closing quotation mark it adjoins whether it is part of the quotation or not.
1765:
855:
work. It was also completed in 1961, further proof that LQ is nothing new in American publishing or language scholarship. Nor has it aged poorly; the current 2002 edition of
1979:
202:
similar to non-North-American style as used by most publishers, but there are differences especially in the "rules" applied, even if they often result in the same output.
145:
sums it up well that with quotations, "follow the original for spelling, capitalization, italics, and punctuation". That's what makes them quotations, not paraphrases.
2216:
903:
The real point of bringing up Yagoda here is that the pro-TQ position tries to have it both ways, and fails at both. First, a prescriptivist argument is advanced – TQ
359:, it turns out to be the most concise yet, advising, "n quoted passages follow the original for spelling, capitalization, italics, and punctuation". That this simply
1058:
If anyone needs further evidence that TQ is simply a habit, a tradition, a largely American establishmentarian behavior, not a logically reasoned decision, Yagoda's
230:
TQ. For the short term, two of the most influential are unavailable online right now, and it is believed to be one of the two, thus no citation yet. In the interim,
1611:
1695:
539:, we are here to build an encyclopedia for the world, not bow to irrational pronouncements by would-be grammar dictators from another medium and another time, who
2059:
819:
discussed here, that TQ simply "is" American style, because all US style guides say so, and that's that. But this just isn't true (even if weren't a faith-based
631:
US style guides, when they agree at all, are constantly in flux, and cannot be treated like holy books. See for example this article on sweeping changes to the
259:
issue. Contrary to common TQ proponents, Canadian journalism and fiction use TQ just as often as US ones, another hole in the "TQ is American style and LQ is
767:, and the Knowledge (XXG) Manual of Style does not operate on such a basis. It does what is best for the encyclopedia, including its accuracy and precision.
355:
style. It's not even non-American style, since some American journals have favored it for over half a century at least. If we consult a British example, the
1498:
550:
and other US style guides) are worse than inconsistent, but blatantly self-contradictory: They assert that colons and semicolons go outside the quotations
1528:
1934:
2171:
1815:
1185:
698:(Trask, 1997), which notes that TQ is done solely "on the theory that a closing quote should always follow another punctuation mark". I.e., it's just
1553:
1071:, if there was a chance their organizations would go over to the other side, they both replied, in essence: "How about never? Is never good for you?"
317:
is well-regarded in the US, and any serious American writer or editor has a current revised edition along with American-published counterparts, like
2007:
895:
kind of place, Poynter changed this only two days later to "More writers are putting commas, periods outside quotation marks". But this is still a
2285:
433:
by Edward D. Johnson (1920, and still in print with misc. revisions) for positive but, in the Knowledge (XXG) context, quite damning views on TQ (
1564:
1198:
776:
694:
The "it's just an arbitrary rule" story: As noted above, even proponents of TQ admit that it is arbitrary. Its opponents also say so, e.g. the
2146:
1800:
1644:
1571:
1377:
1205:
1153:
472:
is just an isolated term, not a statement or question; only the complete sentence deserves a period. Nevertheless, it is wrong; it should be
727:
does this for purely visual reasons (they feel that "UNESCO" stands out too much; yes, really), not because it's logical. (Sound familiar?)
802:
Poynter's own poll on LQ showed only 36% of their largely American journalist and journalism student readership overwhelmingly against LQ,
491:
This is logical, since the semicolon and colon are punctuation for their respective sentences, not for the quotations within the sentences;
222:
which is claimed to be the British style by the proponents of TQ as "American style". There are several other examples in that same piece.
43:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
44:
1238:
619:
What some Wikipedians (and many, especially but not exclusively American, journalism and book editors) have failed to understand is that
2252:
2094:
1533:
342:
1484:
1307:
687:
other punctuation marks in accordance with the context" but in the same section also advises the writer to "lace final quotation marks
188:
editor David Marsh quips that this "makes sense, until you think about it, and realise it is meaningless." To stir the UK pot further,
135:
grounds, not nationality of editors, readership, or subjects. Knowledge (XXG) uses logical quotation because it is in keeping with the
1757:
1263:
2082:
878:
702:, which actually defeats the purpose of punctuating a particular way to begin with. LQ, by contrast, exists specifically because it
862:
Speaking of the linguistic description vs. prescriptive grammar point of view, a May 2011 influential and controversial article in
679:
This sort of cognitive dissonance on the part of American grammar prescriptivists is nothing new. Grant Milnor Hyde's classic 1921
1720:
122:
There is a common misconception that logical quotation (LQ) is "British style" and that typesetters' quotation (TQ, also known as
1437:
1406:
1969:
1552:
Price, Glanville; Richardson, Brian; Cook, Malcolm; Jones, Mari; Lowe, Gerard; Parkinson, Stephen; Rosindale, Liz, eds. (2008).
1322:
1037:
We use double-quotes, and single-quotes for quotations within quotations, not because they are predominantly American (though
2224:
1046:
in most cases, not to be pedantic or to irritate British journalism students, but because it is clarifying and consistent.
1606:
1352:
372:
294:
1879:
1594:
568:
1687:
2305:
2051:
612:
can be confusing and have negative consequences. Consider the following, using TQ: "To delete a file in Unix, use 'rm.
522:
This, in addition to common British journalistic usage of TQ instead of LQ deflates any argument that TQ vs. LQ is a
1083:
forum user has commended it on its clarity. But if there's some way to improve it further, this can surely be done.
351:(Revised 5th Ed., 2009), Section 2.31, clearly recommends LQ (without bothering to name it). So, it's obviously not
1857:
1739:
1511:
536:
2205:
Knowledge (XXG):Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 December 6 § Ending sentence with ellipses in a quotation
2120:
1538:
275:
1944:
827:(thoroughly American, despite "International" in its title, it was published in Cambridge, Massachusetts by
437:
added in several places, since this block quotation is long, and uses a lot of italics for words-as-words):
260:
2026:"How outraged are you by the idea that it might be OK to put commas and periods *outside* quotation marks?"
1832:
1211:
113:– do not add punctuation that is not part of the original quotation – by consensus, because it is accurate.
1577:
1506:
873:
848:
335:
559:
depending on whether they're part of the context of the quoted material (shades of logical punctuation)."
48:
1820:
882:) outspokenly hostile about "Britishisms" entering American English! He even has a blog about it called
820:
795:
on misuse of larger-than-icon graphics, etc.: We do not do things on Knowledge (XXG) just because they "
2277:
2025:
711:: "When an acronym serves as a proper name and exceeds four letters, capitalize only the first letter:
564:
505:
the later guides that picked up his advice and ran with it on most American English points of grammar:
58:
1939:
1432:
973:
852:
575:
309:
1121:
796:
583:
2138:
1715:
1401:
832:
303:
190:
1783:
1031:
931:
523:
256:
198:
style, since colons are normally only used to introduce quotations when they are full sentences).
103:
32:
1788:
1472:
1357:
633:
383:
323:
251:
205:
828:
360:
226:
publishing, for dialogue). At least one of the major newspaper style guides in the UK actually
206:
Typesetters' quotation is not American – British, etc. journalism and fiction often use it, too
2237:
Yagoda's "How about never? Is never good for you?" joking paraphrase, a reference to a famous
2166:
2087:
2021:
2002:
1906:
1899:
1825:
1793:
1657:
1650:
1641:
1568:
1477:
1446:
1415:
1228:
1202:
956:
practice has crept outside of its bounds into appallingly irrational wiki-markup misuses like
2077:
1014:
764:
1974:
1467:
1297:
1276:
864:
808:
264:
1116:
1099:
1079:
PS: As for the occasional suggestion that the MOS's wording on LQ is somehow confusing, an
994:
916:
1993:
1913:
1664:
1253:
627:
Style guides are in flux, and even American ones recommend logical quotation for precision
579:
683:, published in London as well as New York, says on page 55 "Place final quotation marks
1710:
965:
609:
554:, but reverse this reasoning with regard to commas and terminal punctuation. Nichol at
99:
1010:
1006:
567:
Knowledge (XXG) can happily just ignore it. We could actually do that anyway, per the
184:
simply says "The British convention is to place such punctuation according to sense."
2299:
2200:
1633:
1335:
1181:
487:
He gave me a definition of "fail-safe": a system of safeguards that hasn't failed yet
180:
1086:
For a probably much-needed humor break, see this editorial by Carl Atiya Swanson at
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
2257:
2047:
1753:
1637:
1382:
1302:
1233:
1158:
1054:
Logical quotation simply makes sense, no zealotry or establishmentarianism required
920:
160:
1180:
Richardson, Brian; Aizlewood, Robin; Connon, Derek; Cook, Malcolm; Lowe, Gerard;
659:
traditional "rule" and attempting to freeze it in time is an absurdist exercise.
2238:
1930:
514:
1362:
2134:
2108:
2073:
1965:
990:
869:
792:
788:
771:
The "aesthetic story", and traditional inertia's erosion under modern pressure
739:
and other acronyms and initialisms, without periods except in rare cases (the
2090:
1871:
1828:
1796:
1480:
1449:
1418:
102:
are not "British" vs. "American", and their use on Knowledge (XXG) is not an
1660:
1002:
699:
586:, an argument type that Wikipedians have long rejected as inapplicable here.
501:. Why this all matters for Knowledge (XXG) purposes, with regard to Johnson
1916:
1909:
1667:
1554:"MHRA Style Guide: A Handbook for Authors, Editors, and Writers of Theses"
595:
Logical quotation is precise; typesetters' often falsifies quoted material
1330:
1258:
1109:
1018:
998:
780:
728:
413:
having incidentally been the region where TQ got started. TQ is simply a
2241:
cartoon, was misreported in a blog as a direct Feal or Saller quotation.
1849:
1104:
510:
371:, Johnson, and TQ. Oh, okay, that took about five minutes to find: The
242:
Some American (and other) journals have long required logical quotation
137:
1560:
1194:
784:
736:
732:
108:
36:
2112:
1154:"'The British style'? 'The American way?' They are not so different"
395:
The two quotation styles are functionally, not regionally different
2162:"More writers are putting commas, periods outside quotation marks"
1735:
759:
753:
363:
is so obvious they didn't feel it needed elaboration of any kind.
2253:"Comment on '". versus ." Or Where the hell does the period go?'"
891:
under is still the bulk of its URL, thanks to WordPress. Being a
408:
is correct English, but rather that the two quotation styles are
267:
retains many Briticisms (or, rather, eschews many Americanisms).
1902:
1653:
723:
was given as another example that often infuriates readers. The
1378:"Canada – a linguistic battleground between the US and Britain"
926:
Thus –and this is important – the pro-TQ argument amounts to a
483:
He keeps using the word "fail-safe"; I'm not sure what it means
85:
18:
1025:
Knowledge (XXG) is not bound by external style guides, anyway
479:
Commas and periods always go within closing quotation marks.
2033:
425:
Proponents of typesetters' quotation admit it makes no sense
900:
isn't really always anything, as we'll get to in a moment.
787:
on not trying to emulate cutesy formatting of brand names,
263:
style" argument, as Canada is part of the Commonwealth and
149:
Logical quotation is not British; Commonwealth styles vary
1254:"Len Ganley: Snooker referee with stardust on his gloves"
968:, ironically enough, for several examples fixed in 2011.
751:) except where they have been assimilated as words, e.g.
825:
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
2217:"Are Americans Illogical…When It Comes To Punctuation?"
2185:
1281:
307:(1906), used again in H. W.'s original 1926 edition of
73:
66:
493:...there is no more quotation to connect or introduce.
1499:"Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies – Style Guide"
811:
does it, and AP does it simply because they like it.
1758:"diapers, nappies, and verbal inferiority complexes"
1187:
MHRA Style Guide: A Handbook for Authors and Editors
804:
despite the poll being heavily skewed in favor of TQ
485:
has the semicolon after the closing quotation mark;
431:
The Washington Square Press Handbook of Good English
327:relying on Fowler in their own in-house stylebook.
923:'s highly patrioticized lexicographical efforts).
375:(founded 1924), the main professional society for
357:Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide
729:Knowledge (XXG) dispenses with such inconsistency
287:. Here is the premier US law journal bucking the
212:"Len did a terrific amount for charity," he said.
868:by American professor of English and journalism
489:has the colon after the closing quotation mark.
424:
1960:
1958:
1956:
1954:
1777:
1775:
1461:
1459:
1321:Allen, John (March 2003). Acheson, Fran (ed.).
1064:
1062:article includes the following in its closure:
541:admit that their own arguments don't make sense
439:
1688:"Logical Punctuation Isn't the Logical Choice"
669:itself documents LQ as an "alternative system"
594:
246:Meanwhile, a North American business journal,
138:principle of minimal change to quoted material
770:
621:direct quotations are in fact string literals
604:, when they're even aware of it at all). The
546:Johnson's "rules" (and consequently those of
8:
509:The assertions that typesetters' quotation "
1736:"Legal Research and Citation Style in USA"
980:Journalism style is not encyclopedic style
552:because they are not part of the quotation
477:It isn't logical, it's just the way it is.
474:I'm not sure what is meant by "fail-safe."
463:I'm not sure what is meant by "fail-safe".
1844:
1842:
1681:
1679:
1677:
1175:
1173:
100:Logical and typesetters' quotation styles
447:The answer has nothing to do with logic.
381:language scholars, and the publisher of
218:versus the supposedly expected version:
45:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
1147:
1145:
1143:
1141:
1139:
1137:
1133:
943:again and again, since at least 2005).
831:, and edited by American lexicographer
1565:Modern Humanities Research Association
1229:"Guardian and Observer style guide: Q"
1199:Modern Humanities Research Association
911:use TQ in US-English articles because
777:Modern Language Association of America
696:University of Sussex Punctuation Guide
219:
215:
211:
110:Knowledge (XXG) uses logical quotation
1816:"AP Stylebook changes with the times"
602:Wikipedians generally are not careful
332:Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies
7:
608:is that the incorrect conveyance of
429:By way of some pro-TQ contrast, see
1998:"Hater-ation for the Hyphen Nation"
1970:"The Rise of "Logical Punctuation""
1734:Standler, Ronald B. (2009-12-16) .
1534:Royal Australian Historical Society
1298:"Guardian and Observer style guide"
343:Royal Australian Historical Society
2276:Swanson, Carl Atiya (2011-07-04).
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
2278:"The Joys of an Oxfordless Comma"
2083:The Chronicle of Higher Education
1466:Corbett, Philip B. (2010-04-13).
1353:"Entrepreneurial Practice Review"
879:The Chronicle of Higher Education
442:"I have to go home now," he said.
330:Meanwhile, the British-published
2288:from the original on 2011-07-15.
2265:from the original on 2023-07-12.
2149:from the original on 2011-06-04.
2123:from the original on 2011-05-11.
2097:from the original on 2011-01-05.
2062:from the original on 2011-05-15.
1982:from the original on 2011-10-11.
1882:from the original on 2004-02-25.
1860:from the original on 2004-04-02.
1803:from the original on 2011-03-25.
1768:from the original on 2008-02-16.
1742:from the original on 2009-12-31.
1723:from the original on 2012-04-05.
1711:"URL contains punctuation, p.50"
1698:from the original on 2011-06-10.
1617:from the original on 2015-09-04.
1487:from the original on 2010-04-16.
1438:American Bar Association Journal
1407:American Bar Association Journal
1390:from the original on 2013-09-15.
1310:from the original on 2021-05-10.
1266:from the original on 2011-08-29.
1241:from the original on 2014-03-26.
1166:from the original on 2014-11-22.
313:. Contrary to various punditry,
89:
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
843:was the first truly modern and
367:more often being the allies of
248:Entrepreneurial Practice Review
2056:Separated by a Common Language
1762:Separated by a Common Language
681:Handbook for Newspaper Workers
1:
2160:Romenesko, Jim (2011-05-13).
1607:Linguistic Society of America
1376:Thibodeau, Amy (2010-06-09).
1184:; Paver, Chloe, eds. (2013).
373:Linguistic Society of America
2223:. 2011-06-29. Archived from
1709:Stewart, Marc (2010-05-26).
1630:The Handbook of Good English
1537:. 2011. p. 1. Archived from
859:still contains this advice.
1893:Hyde, Grant Milnor (1921).
1628:Johnson, Edward D. (1991).
1152:Marsh, David (2011-05-19).
985:newspapers. David Marsh of
823:fallacy). Take for example
466:This is logical punctuation
2322:
1872:"Generalized Stylebook: Q"
1814:Hogan, Dave (2011-06-22).
1252:McKee, Ross (2011-08-29).
349:European Union Style Guide
118:
56:
2052:"Not One-Off Britishisms"
1445:(10): 866. October 1950.
1323:"The BBC News Styleguide"
731:, and always capitalizes
582:, and an obvious case of
404:is correct Spanish while
947:Technical considerations
652:Tameri Guide for Writers
158:belong there logically.
97:This page in a nutshell:
2143:Not One-Off Britishisms
2139:""Logical punctuation""
2117:Not One-Off Britishisms
2078:"The Elements of Clunk"
1850:"Generalized Stylebook"
1414:(1): 72. January 1951.
1069:Chicago Manual of Style
893:Chicago Manual of Style
884:Not One-Off Britishisms
665:Chicago Manual of Style
321:. Here's an example of
2306:Knowledge (XXG) essays
1935:"Guide to Punctuation"
1510:. p. 1. Archived from
1507:University of Aberdeen
1433:"Views of Our Readers"
1402:"Views of Our Readers"
1073:
938:technical writing and
917:Knowledge (XXG) is not
913:that's just US English
874:University of Delaware
743:only recently dropped
495:
336:University of Aberdeen
2251:Noodle (2007-11-09).
1821:Abilene Reporter-News
1784:"The Latest in Style"
821:argument to authority
456:arbitrary positioning
47:, as it has not been
1940:University of Sussex
974:Commonwealth English
524:varieties-of-English
310:Modern English Usage
261:British Commonwealth
1876:Tameri Publications
1854:Tameri Publications
1782:Corbett, Philip B.
833:Philip Babcock Gove
829:G. & C. Merriam
791:on abuse of color,
569:WP:Ignore all rules
452:regardless of logic
191:The Daily Telegraph
124:printers' quotation
1789:The New York Times
1473:The New York Times
1358:Ryerson University
905:is correct, dammit
709:The New York Times
634:The New York Times
622:
607:
556:Daily Writing Tips
529:Daily Writing Tips
492:
478:
467:
457:
453:
448:
436:
417:. LQ is a logical
380:
324:The New York Times
304:The King's English
279:
252:Ryerson University
2167:Poynter Institute
2003:Poynter Institute
1646:978-0-671-70797-2
1573:978-0-947623-76-0
1207:978-1-78188-009-8
783:in its entirety,
620:
605:
490:
476:
465:
455:
451:
446:
434:
376:
292:standards on the
277:
117:
116:
84:
83:
2313:
2290:
2289:
2273:
2267:
2266:
2248:
2242:
2235:
2229:
2228:
2213:
2207:
2198:
2192:
2191:
2186:Old revision of
2182:
2176:
2175:
2170:. Archived from
2157:
2151:
2150:
2131:
2125:
2124:
2105:
2099:
2098:
2070:
2064:
2063:
2044:
2038:
2037:
2032:. Archived from
2018:
2012:
2011:
2006:. Archived from
1994:Clark, Roy Peter
1990:
1984:
1983:
1962:
1949:
1948:
1943:. Archived from
1927:
1921:
1920:
1890:
1884:
1883:
1868:
1862:
1861:
1846:
1837:
1836:
1831:. Archived from
1811:
1805:
1804:
1779:
1770:
1769:
1750:
1744:
1743:
1731:
1725:
1724:
1706:
1700:
1699:
1692:DailyWritingTips
1683:
1672:
1671:
1625:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1603:
1591:
1585:
1584:
1582:
1576:. Archived from
1558:
1549:
1543:
1542:
1525:
1519:
1518:
1516:
1503:
1495:
1489:
1488:
1463:
1454:
1453:
1429:
1423:
1422:
1398:
1392:
1391:
1373:
1367:
1366:
1361:. Archived from
1349:
1343:
1342:
1340:
1334:. Archived from
1327:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1294:
1288:
1287:
1274:
1268:
1267:
1249:
1243:
1242:
1225:
1219:
1218:
1216:
1210:. Archived from
1192:
1177:
1168:
1167:
1149:
963:
959:
955:
615:
390:
295:GPO Style Manual
236:
143:MHRA Style Guide
93:
92:
86:
76:
69:
26:
25:
19:
2321:
2320:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2275:
2274:
2270:
2250:
2249:
2245:
2236:
2232:
2215:
2214:
2210:
2199:
2195:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2159:
2158:
2154:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2107:
2106:
2102:
2072:
2071:
2067:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2020:
2019:
2015:
1996:(2011-03-03) .
1992:
1991:
1987:
1964:
1963:
1952:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1848:
1847:
1840:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1781:
1780:
1773:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1685:
1684:
1675:
1647:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1614:
1601:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1580:
1574:
1556:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1514:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1468:"FAQs on Style"
1465:
1464:
1457:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1338:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1214:
1208:
1190:
1179:
1178:
1171:
1151:
1150:
1135:
1130:
1096:
1056:
1027:
982:
961:
957:
953:
949:
857:Webster's Third
841:Webster's Third
837:Webster's Third
773:
685:before or after
637:stylebook. The
629:
613:
610:string literals
597:
537:WP:Five pillars
535:it green. Per
513:" necessarily "
435:strong emphasis
427:
397:
388:
341:Journal of the
281:Bar Association
244:
234:
208:
151:
120:
90:
80:
79:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2319:
2317:
2309:
2308:
2298:
2297:
2292:
2291:
2282:The Tangential
2268:
2243:
2230:
2227:on 2011-07-05.
2208:
2203:'s comment at
2193:
2188:Quotation mark
2177:
2174:on 2011-05-15.
2152:
2137:(2011-05-14).
2126:
2100:
2076:(2011-01-02).
2065:
2050:(2011-03-21).
2039:
2036:on 2011-08-28.
2013:
2010:on 2011-05-17.
1985:
1968:(2011-05-12).
1950:
1947:on 2007-05-19.
1922:
1885:
1863:
1838:
1835:on 2011-06-26.
1806:
1771:
1756:(2007-09-03).
1745:
1726:
1701:
1686:Nichol, Mark.
1673:
1645:
1620:
1586:
1583:on 2009-12-29.
1572:
1559:(Second ed.).
1544:
1541:on 2012-03-20.
1520:
1517:on 2011-04-10.
1490:
1455:
1424:
1393:
1368:
1365:on 2012-03-08.
1344:
1341:on 2004-07-18.
1313:
1289:
1269:
1244:
1220:
1217:on 2015-04-21.
1206:
1182:Nelson, Graham
1169:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1107:
1095:
1092:
1088:The Tangential
1055:
1052:
1026:
1023:
981:
978:
966:Quotation mark
948:
945:
941:
937:
930:-extension of
929:
914:
910:
906:
898:
853:prescriptivist
847:dictionary, a
846:
818:
805:
772:
769:
705:
690:
686:
674:
670:
628:
625:
603:
596:
593:
592:
591:
587:
572:
560:
553:
544:
542:
532:
520:
517:", and is the
504:
426:
423:
420:
416:
411:
396:
393:
379:
286:
280:
243:
240:
229:
207:
204:
177:
173:
157:
150:
147:
134:
115:
114:
111:
94:
82:
81:
78:
77:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2318:
2307:
2304:
2303:
2301:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2272:
2269:
2264:
2260:
2259:
2254:
2247:
2244:
2240:
2234:
2231:
2226:
2222:
2221:Commentarista
2218:
2212:
2209:
2206:
2202:
2197:
2194:
2190:
2189:
2181:
2178:
2173:
2169:
2168:
2163:
2156:
2153:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2130:
2127:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2104:
2101:
2096:
2092:
2089:
2085:
2084:
2079:
2075:
2069:
2066:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2048:Murphy, Lynne
2043:
2040:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2017:
2014:
2009:
2005:
2004:
1999:
1995:
1989:
1986:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1971:
1967:
1961:
1959:
1957:
1955:
1951:
1946:
1942:
1941:
1936:
1932:
1926:
1923:
1918:
1915:
1911:
1908:
1904:
1901:
1897:
1889:
1886:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1845:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1830:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1817:
1810:
1807:
1802:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1785:
1778:
1776:
1772:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:Murphy, Lynne
1749:
1746:
1741:
1737:
1730:
1727:
1722:
1718:
1717:
1712:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1682:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1669:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1624:
1621:
1613:
1609:
1608:
1600:
1598:
1590:
1587:
1579:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1555:
1548:
1545:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1529:"Style Guide"
1524:
1521:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1500:
1494:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1469:
1462:
1460:
1456:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1434:
1428:
1425:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1403:
1397:
1394:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1379:
1372:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1354:
1348:
1345:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1324:
1317:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1278:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1230:
1224:
1221:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1193:(Third ed.).
1189:
1188:
1183:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1155:
1148:
1146:
1144:
1142:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1091:
1089:
1084:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1070:
1063:
1061:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1045:
1040:
1035:
1033:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
979:
977:
975:
969:
967:
946:
944:
939:
935:
933:
927:
924:
922:
918:
912:
908:
904:
901:
896:
894:
889:
885:
881:
880:
875:
871:
867:
866:
860:
858:
854:
850:
849:descriptivist
844:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
816:
812:
810:
803:
800:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
768:
766:
762:
761:
756:
755:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
703:
701:
697:
692:
688:
684:
682:
677:
672:
668:
666:
660:
657:
653:
649:
645:
640:
636:
635:
626:
624:
617:
611:
601:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
566:
561:
557:
551:
549:
545:
540:
538:
533:
530:
525:
518:
516:
512:
508:
507:
506:
502:
500:
494:
488:
484:
480:
475:
471:
464:
460:
443:
438:
432:
422:
418:
414:
409:
407:
403:
394:
392:
386:
385:
377:
374:
370:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
344:
337:
333:
328:
326:
325:
320:
316:
312:
311:
306:
305:
299:
297:
296:
290:
284:
282:
276:
273:
268:
266:
265:their dialect
262:
258:
253:
249:
241:
239:
233:
227:
223:
221:
217:
213:
203:
199:
197:
193:
192:
187:
183:
182:
181:The Economist
175:
171:
168:
164:
162:
155:
148:
146:
144:
140:
139:
132:
128:
125:
112:
109:
105:
101:
98:
95:
88:
87:
75:
71:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
2281:
2271:
2258:Ars Technica
2256:
2246:
2233:
2225:the original
2220:
2211:
2196:
2187:
2180:
2172:the original
2165:
2155:
2142:
2129:
2116:
2103:
2081:
2068:
2055:
2042:
2034:the original
2029:
2016:
2008:the original
2001:
1988:
1973:
1945:the original
1938:
1931:Trask, Larry
1925:
1894:
1888:
1875:
1866:
1853:
1833:the original
1819:
1809:
1787:
1761:
1748:
1729:
1714:
1704:
1691:
1638:Pocket Books
1629:
1623:
1605:
1599:Style Sheet"
1596:
1589:
1578:the original
1547:
1539:the original
1532:
1523:
1512:the original
1505:
1493:
1471:
1442:
1436:
1427:
1411:
1405:
1396:
1383:The Guardian
1381:
1371:
1363:the original
1356:
1347:
1336:the original
1329:
1316:
1303:The Guardian
1301:
1292:
1283:
1272:
1257:
1247:
1234:The Guardian
1232:
1223:
1212:the original
1186:
1159:The Guardian
1157:
1087:
1085:
1081:Ars Technica
1080:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1065:
1059:
1057:
1048:
1043:
1039:The Guardian
1038:
1036:
1028:
987:The Guardian
986:
983:
970:
950:
925:
921:Noah Webster
902:
892:
887:
883:
877:
863:
861:
856:
840:
836:
824:
813:
801:
774:
758:
752:
748:
744:
740:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
695:
693:
680:
678:
664:
661:
655:
651:
647:
643:
638:
632:
630:
618:
598:
576:tautological
555:
547:
528:
498:
496:
486:
482:
481:
473:
469:
462:
461:
441:
440:
430:
428:
410:functionally
405:
401:
398:
382:
368:
365:
356:
352:
348:
340:
331:
329:
322:
318:
314:
308:
302:
300:
293:
288:
274:(that's the
271:
269:
247:
245:
232:The Guardian
231:
224:
220:...charity",
216:...charity,"
209:
200:
195:
189:
185:
179:
167:The Guardian
166:
161:The Guardian
159:
152:
142:
136:
129:
123:
121:
96:
30:
2239:Bob Mankoff
2135:Yagoda, Ben
2109:Yagoda, Ben
2074:Yagoda, Ben
1966:Yagoda, Ben
1284:Style guide
1277:SMcCandlish
962:'''text.'''
809:AP Newswire
797:look better
700:meaningless
565:WP:NOTPAPER
454:. Now this
361:makes sense
272:ABA Journal
176:standing in
163:Style Guide
31:This is an
1640:. p. 158.
1128:References
1122:WP:ENGLANG
870:Ben Yagoda
845:linguistic
817:everything
793:MOS:IMAGES
789:MOS:ACCESS
606:core issue
584:WP:ILIKEIT
580:fallacious
445:a period.
228:recommends
131:on, well,
74:WP:ABOUTLQ
2091:0009-5982
1898:. p. 55.
1829:0199-3267
1797:1553-8095
1716:Launchpad
1481:1553-8095
1450:0747-0088
1419:0747-0088
1032:WP:ENGVAR
1003:MOS:TITLE
991:notorious
958:''text,''
932:WP:ENGVAR
765:preaching
470:fail-safe
257:WP:ENGVAR
104:WP:ENGVAR
67:WP:LQUOTE
59:Shortcuts
2300:Category
2286:Archived
2263:Archived
2201:Arakunem
2147:Archived
2121:Archived
2095:Archived
2060:Archived
1980:Archived
1933:(1997).
1917:6637632M
1903:21016955
1896:practice
1880:Archived
1858:Archived
1801:Archived
1766:Archived
1740:Archived
1721:Archived
1696:Archived
1668:1888275M
1661:22508624
1654:90049623
1634:New York
1612:Archived
1610:. p. 4.
1597:Language
1485:Archived
1388:Archived
1331:BBC News
1308:Archived
1282:edit to
1264:Archived
1259:BBC News
1239:Archived
1164:Archived
1110:MOS:FAQ2
1094:See also
1019:MOS:PUFF
999:MOS:LEAD
781:MOS:ICON
384:Language
378:American
278:American
196:Guardian
186:Guardian
2030:twtpoll
2022:Poynter
1910:1430840
1105:MOS:FAQ
1015:WP:NPOV
954:"text,"
897:neutral
872:of the
639:Chicago
571:policy.
548:Chicago
515:correct
499:Chicago
406:to live
369:Chicago
353:British
334:of the
319:Chicago
289:Chicago
133:logical
2113:"Home"
1561:London
1195:London
1117:WP:UML
785:MOS:TM
749:U.R.L.
745:U.S.B.
737:UNESCO
733:NASCAR
721:Nascar
717:Unicef
713:Unesco
656:Tameri
648:e-mail
468:since
419:system
37:MOS:LQ
1975:Slate
1615:(PDF)
1602:(PDF)
1581:(PDF)
1557:(PDF)
1515:(PDF)
1502:(PDF)
1339:(PDF)
1326:(PDF)
1215:(PDF)
1191:(PDF)
1060:Slate
928:hyper
888:Slate
865:Slate
760:laser
754:radar
689:after
646:over
644:email
415:habit
402:vivir
214:Note
33:essay
2088:ISSN
1907:OCLC
1900:LCCN
1826:ISSN
1794:ISSN
1658:OCLC
1651:LCCN
1642:ISBN
1569:ISBN
1478:ISSN
1447:ISSN
1416:ISSN
1203:ISBN
1100:MOS:
1011:WP:N
1007:WP:V
995:MOS:
960:and
909:must
851:not
775:The
747:and
704:does
578:and
519:only
285:1951
270:The
172:will
156:does
1279:'s
1044:Dr.
741:NYT
725:NYT
719:."
673:all
503:and
315:MEU
250:at
35:on
2302::
2284:.
2280:.
2261:.
2255:.
2219:.
2164:.
2145:.
2141:.
2119:.
2115:.
2111:.
2093:.
2086:.
2080:.
2058:.
2054:.
2028:.
2024:.
2000:.
1978:.
1972:.
1953:^
1937:.
1914:OL
1912:.
1905:.
1878:.
1874:.
1856:.
1852:.
1841:^
1824:.
1818:.
1799:.
1792:.
1786:.
1774:^
1764:.
1760:.
1738:.
1719:.
1713:.
1694:.
1690:.
1676:^
1665:OL
1663:.
1656:.
1649:.
1636::
1632:.
1604:.
1567:.
1563::
1531:.
1504:.
1483:.
1476:.
1470:.
1458:^
1443:36
1441:.
1435:.
1412:37
1410:.
1404:.
1386:.
1380:.
1355:.
1328:.
1306:.
1300:.
1262:.
1256:.
1237:.
1231:.
1201:.
1197::
1172:^
1162:.
1156:.
1136:^
1090:.
1017:,
1013:,
1009:,
1005:,
1001:,
997:,
940:is
936:is
757:,
735:,
715:;
511:is
421:.
235:'s
1919:.
1670:.
1595:"
1452:.
1421:.
972:(
614:'
543:.
389:'
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.