Does the comma go inside or outside of a closing quotation mark? The difference is less than a milimeter, but there is an ocean of difference to an editor. The Atlantic Ocean, to be specific. This is one of those things, like whether to put a u in color or spell gray with an e, that distinguishes British from American English usage.
First, let’s answer the question. In the United States, the comma goes inside the quotation mark. The period goes inside the quotation mark too. No logic or thinking is involved. You just put it on the inside, like this—she said, “Don’t even think about it,” then slammed the door. And this—He gave one good reason: “Because I said so.”
If it sounds like a fight, that is because in business and editorial offices this often does become a fight, because it is an arbitrary-seeming style rule. However, it is important for consistency, which is the mark of a high-quality publication or a well-constructed business document. And the tradition in American publishing is to punctuate quotations this way.
Here are the U.S. rules for other punctuation with quotation marks:
Colons and semicolons always go outside a closing quotation mark.
Question marks and exclamation points go either on the outside or the inside of the quotation mark, depending on whether the punctuation is part of the quote or not. Thus:
He asked, “How do you punctuate a question?” (The quote is actually a question, so the question mark is part of the quote.)
She shouted, “No way!”(The exclamation point is part of the quote.)
Did he say, “I don’t know”? (The quote is not a question, so the question mark does not go inside the quotation mark. The overall sentence is a question, so the question mark goes at the very end, after the closing quotation mark.)
Did she ask, “Where is the library?” (When both the quote and the overall sentence are questions, you arbitrarily opt for inside.)
Now that we have looked at the rules, it is time to look at the exception. In text that is specifying exactly what to type in something like a computer programming language or a URL, you do not put the comma or period inside the quote: Now type “http://www.iconlogic.com”, which is the web address of our company.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
When we join things, are they always plural?
Which of the following is incorrect?
1. Both the status report on the bridge project, as well as the budget report, are in the folder.
2. The page proof as well as the list of corrections has been sent.
3. Smith, Michaels and Jones is our law firm.
I often see errors of verb agreement in business writing, even though at its most basic level, verb agreement is considered quite elementary. After all, almost no one who writes professionally would say “the reports is in the folder” or “the project are complete.”
How, then, do we end up with verb agreement problems in professional writing? Often the problems occur when more than one subject precedes the verb in a sentence.
The basic rule for multiple subjects is that when two or more subjects are connected by the word “and,” a plural verb is used. For example, “My dog and my cat [a total of two pets] are [plural verb] hiding behind the couch.”
The second rule, however, is that if you use a connecting phrase other than the exact word “and,” the subjects do not add up. So when you connect two subjects with phrases such as “as well as,” “in addition to,” “along with,” the additional subjects do not count. For example, “My dog [the main pet I am discussing] as well as my cat [which does not count, because I used a phrase other than “and”] has [singular verb] fleas.”
Another problem that comes up with “and” versus other connecting phrases is the use of the word “both” in front of any other connecter but “and.” The words “both” and “and” form a team, known as a correlative conjunction, and “both” cannot be used with other phrases. “Both Jack as well as Jill” is completely wrong. Either eliminate “both” or use “and” instead of “as well as.”
Finally, there is an exception to the “and makes plural” rule. I call it the macaroni and cheese rule. Some phrases containing the word “and” actually describe a singular thing, like macaroni and cheese. When you eat macaroni and cheese for dinner, you are eating one dish. The macaroni and the cheese are all mixed together to form one substance. So we correctly say “The macaroni and cheese [one substance] is [singular verb] good tonight.”
Not only other foods, such as spaghetti and meatballs, but also many proper nouns and job titles contain the word “and” but name a singular thing: steak and eggs is my favorite breakfast; the Stars and Stripes is waving atop the flagpole; Smith and Jones is the accounting firm; our secretary and treasurer is Mike.
With these rules and exceptions duly noted, by now you can be sure: No. 1 is incorrect, and Nos. 2 and 3 are correct.
1. Both the status report on the bridge project, as well as the budget report, are in the folder.
2. The page proof as well as the list of corrections has been sent.
3. Smith, Michaels and Jones is our law firm.
I often see errors of verb agreement in business writing, even though at its most basic level, verb agreement is considered quite elementary. After all, almost no one who writes professionally would say “the reports is in the folder” or “the project are complete.”
How, then, do we end up with verb agreement problems in professional writing? Often the problems occur when more than one subject precedes the verb in a sentence.
The basic rule for multiple subjects is that when two or more subjects are connected by the word “and,” a plural verb is used. For example, “My dog and my cat [a total of two pets] are [plural verb] hiding behind the couch.”
The second rule, however, is that if you use a connecting phrase other than the exact word “and,” the subjects do not add up. So when you connect two subjects with phrases such as “as well as,” “in addition to,” “along with,” the additional subjects do not count. For example, “My dog [the main pet I am discussing] as well as my cat [which does not count, because I used a phrase other than “and”] has [singular verb] fleas.”
Another problem that comes up with “and” versus other connecting phrases is the use of the word “both” in front of any other connecter but “and.” The words “both” and “and” form a team, known as a correlative conjunction, and “both” cannot be used with other phrases. “Both Jack as well as Jill” is completely wrong. Either eliminate “both” or use “and” instead of “as well as.”
Finally, there is an exception to the “and makes plural” rule. I call it the macaroni and cheese rule. Some phrases containing the word “and” actually describe a singular thing, like macaroni and cheese. When you eat macaroni and cheese for dinner, you are eating one dish. The macaroni and the cheese are all mixed together to form one substance. So we correctly say “The macaroni and cheese [one substance] is [singular verb] good tonight.”
Not only other foods, such as spaghetti and meatballs, but also many proper nouns and job titles contain the word “and” but name a singular thing: steak and eggs is my favorite breakfast; the Stars and Stripes is waving atop the flagpole; Smith and Jones is the accounting firm; our secretary and treasurer is Mike.
With these rules and exceptions duly noted, by now you can be sure: No. 1 is incorrect, and Nos. 2 and 3 are correct.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
When To Hyphenate Adjectives
The astute reader of the last column on commas with adjectives may have noticed that in the example Brian’s comfortable big old brown soft Italian leather driving jacket sleeve was lurking a hyphenation question. Shouldn’t Italian leather be hyphenated?
The answer is it depends. Was it an Italian jacket made of leather? Or was it a jacket made of Italian leather?
Wait. Wait. That is breaking my brain. At least that is what my neighbor’s son says when I try to discuss these matters with him when going over his school work.
Let’s start from the beginning. How do you tell if you need a hyphen with adjectives? You ask whether each adjective can be used by itself to describe your noun. If yes, no hyphens. If no, you probably need a hyphen. “Wait. What do you mean by probably?” I can hear my neighbor say. Let’s look at some examples.
Two small green lizards. Can you use the word two by itself to describe the lizards? Yes. There were two lizards. Can you say they were small lizards? Yes. Can you say they were green lizards. Yes. Each of these words can describe the lizards. You don’t need any hyphens.
Five-mile hike. Can you call it a five hike? No. The word five cannot, by itself, describe the hike. You have to combine it with the word mile before you can have a complete unit that can modify the hike. Editors call this a unit modifier. The hyphen combines the two words into one unit.
So far so good. But now comes the probably part. Two things might mean you still do not use a hyphen. One is if the two words are already perceived as a unit by your readers: high school dance. The compound word high school is already a well-known unit. It is even in the dictionary under h for high. Similarly, real estate license and home run hitter.
The other thing you don’t hyphenate is an adverb. If the first word modifies the second, often specifying the degree or intensity of the adjective, then that first word is an adverb. Don’t hyphenate after an adverb. The very small lizard. The completely green lizard. The extremely low discount. The previously described report. The highly motivated employee. The completely correct grammar.
So what about the Italian leather jacket? Without the hyphen, I am saying the word Italian is just one of a list of adjectives describing the jacket. If I had meant that it was a jacket made of Italian leather, I would have needed a hyphen.
The answer is it depends. Was it an Italian jacket made of leather? Or was it a jacket made of Italian leather?
Wait. Wait. That is breaking my brain. At least that is what my neighbor’s son says when I try to discuss these matters with him when going over his school work.
Let’s start from the beginning. How do you tell if you need a hyphen with adjectives? You ask whether each adjective can be used by itself to describe your noun. If yes, no hyphens. If no, you probably need a hyphen. “Wait. What do you mean by probably?” I can hear my neighbor say. Let’s look at some examples.
Two small green lizards. Can you use the word two by itself to describe the lizards? Yes. There were two lizards. Can you say they were small lizards? Yes. Can you say they were green lizards. Yes. Each of these words can describe the lizards. You don’t need any hyphens.
Five-mile hike. Can you call it a five hike? No. The word five cannot, by itself, describe the hike. You have to combine it with the word mile before you can have a complete unit that can modify the hike. Editors call this a unit modifier. The hyphen combines the two words into one unit.
So far so good. But now comes the probably part. Two things might mean you still do not use a hyphen. One is if the two words are already perceived as a unit by your readers: high school dance. The compound word high school is already a well-known unit. It is even in the dictionary under h for high. Similarly, real estate license and home run hitter.
The other thing you don’t hyphenate is an adverb. If the first word modifies the second, often specifying the degree or intensity of the adjective, then that first word is an adverb. Don’t hyphenate after an adverb. The very small lizard. The completely green lizard. The extremely low discount. The previously described report. The highly motivated employee. The completely correct grammar.
So what about the Italian leather jacket? Without the hyphen, I am saying the word Italian is just one of a list of adjectives describing the jacket. If I had meant that it was a jacket made of Italian leather, I would have needed a hyphen.
Why We Sometimes Need Commas Between Adjectives, And Sometimes Not
Why We Sometimes Need Commas Between Adjectives, And Sometimes Not
Bradford’s extensive, thorough report
The large gray dialog box
The ugly, unnecessary graphic
The italic, underlined word
The heavy black bounding box
A good friend of mine who has been a writer for years recently took a job in which she has to copyedit. One day she IM’ed me: “What is up with the commas between adjectives? My boss seems to always put them in—but I don’t think they are needed. Are there rules for this?”
Ahhh, the kind of question that warms a long-time copyeditor and grammar teacher’s heart. Yes, my dear, there are rules for this. But most native speakers of English have never heard of them. We simply rely on our “ear.”
The rules start with the official order of adjectives. The large blue dinosaur just sounds more familiar, more correct, than the blue large dinosaur. We always put size before color when describing something: the gigantic green frog, the large black briefcase.
We can put together long strings of adjectives without any punctuation, as long as we follow the official order of adjectives: the valuable old green Mercedes sedan.
The order is first a, the, or a possessive such as my or Tom’s. Then we put evaluation or opinion, followed by the physical description—size, shape, age, color, texture—followed by where it came from, the material it is made of, and finally its purpose or main use. Oh, and we might have one last item before the noun: another noun that helps identify it.
Thus I can describe Brian’s comfortable big old brown soft Italian leather driving jacket sleeve without using any commas, although that is admittedly going a little over the top.
When do we have to use commas? When we use the adjectives out of order, as in the old, uncomfortable sofa (age before evaluation) as opposed to the uncomfortable old sofa; and when we use two adjectives that are in the same category or that are not part of the official categories: her comfortable, affordable alternative (two evaluations).
Besides order, there is another easy test for whether you need a comma. Can you read it with the word and between the adjectives? If so, you need a comma. Her comfortable and affordable alternative? Yes. My dear and old Aunt Sally? I don’t think so. No comma.
Bradford’s extensive, thorough report
The large gray dialog box
The ugly, unnecessary graphic
The italic, underlined word
The heavy black bounding box
A good friend of mine who has been a writer for years recently took a job in which she has to copyedit. One day she IM’ed me: “What is up with the commas between adjectives? My boss seems to always put them in—but I don’t think they are needed. Are there rules for this?”
Ahhh, the kind of question that warms a long-time copyeditor and grammar teacher’s heart. Yes, my dear, there are rules for this. But most native speakers of English have never heard of them. We simply rely on our “ear.”
The rules start with the official order of adjectives. The large blue dinosaur just sounds more familiar, more correct, than the blue large dinosaur. We always put size before color when describing something: the gigantic green frog, the large black briefcase.
We can put together long strings of adjectives without any punctuation, as long as we follow the official order of adjectives: the valuable old green Mercedes sedan.
The order is first a, the, or a possessive such as my or Tom’s. Then we put evaluation or opinion, followed by the physical description—size, shape, age, color, texture—followed by where it came from, the material it is made of, and finally its purpose or main use. Oh, and we might have one last item before the noun: another noun that helps identify it.
Thus I can describe Brian’s comfortable big old brown soft Italian leather driving jacket sleeve without using any commas, although that is admittedly going a little over the top.
When do we have to use commas? When we use the adjectives out of order, as in the old, uncomfortable sofa (age before evaluation) as opposed to the uncomfortable old sofa; and when we use two adjectives that are in the same category or that are not part of the official categories: her comfortable, affordable alternative (two evaluations).
Besides order, there is another easy test for whether you need a comma. Can you read it with the word and between the adjectives? If so, you need a comma. Her comfortable and affordable alternative? Yes. My dear and old Aunt Sally? I don’t think so. No comma.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Irregardless
The most frequent statement about the word “irregardless” is that it is not a word. But recently a friend’s daughter had the embarrassing experience of making this statement and being proved wrong, none too politely, by another youthful dictionary wielder.
Yes, the word irregardless is in the dictionary. But then, so is “ain’t.” And so is “leastways.” And so is “nother” as in “a whole nother story.”
What gives? Are they just letting any old thing into the dictionary these days? The truth is, if people use an expression enough in both spoken and written form, it will eventually turn up in Webster’s—even if it is considered wrong.
How, then, are we supposed to know whether it is ok to use these words in our business documents and publications? The answer is in the usage labels and usage notes that accompany problematic words in the dictionary.
“Irregardless” bears the usage label “nonstand” in Webster’s. This italicized label means that this word is not considered a part of standard English. Both the dictionary and two “usage guides” I consulted simply stated that “regardless” should be used instead. Microsoft Word put in its two cents by marking the word with red underlining as I typed it and offering “regardless” as the correct spelling.
The upshot? Read the label. Many words in the dictionary are labeled as slang, obs (obsolete), dial (dialect), chiefly Southwest, or Austral or Canad or Brit (meaning mostly used in those countries or regions), or even as usually vulgar or obscene. If a word has one of these labels, do not use it in your professional writing.
“Ain’t”? Considered nonstandard except in popular expressions such as “Say it ain’t so.” “Leastways”? Labeled as dialect. “Nother”? Used chiefly in speech or informal prose. And “irregardless”? Yes, it is a word, but it is a word with a bad reputation. Don’t use it.
Don’t have time to look it up or don’t always have a three-pound, hard-cover dictionary in your hip pocket? On the internet you can check Merriam-Webster Online at m-w.com
Yes, the word irregardless is in the dictionary. But then, so is “ain’t.” And so is “leastways.” And so is “nother” as in “a whole nother story.”
What gives? Are they just letting any old thing into the dictionary these days? The truth is, if people use an expression enough in both spoken and written form, it will eventually turn up in Webster’s—even if it is considered wrong.
How, then, are we supposed to know whether it is ok to use these words in our business documents and publications? The answer is in the usage labels and usage notes that accompany problematic words in the dictionary.
“Irregardless” bears the usage label “nonstand” in Webster’s. This italicized label means that this word is not considered a part of standard English. Both the dictionary and two “usage guides” I consulted simply stated that “regardless” should be used instead. Microsoft Word put in its two cents by marking the word with red underlining as I typed it and offering “regardless” as the correct spelling.
The upshot? Read the label. Many words in the dictionary are labeled as slang, obs (obsolete), dial (dialect), chiefly Southwest, or Austral or Canad or Brit (meaning mostly used in those countries or regions), or even as usually vulgar or obscene. If a word has one of these labels, do not use it in your professional writing.
“Ain’t”? Considered nonstandard except in popular expressions such as “Say it ain’t so.” “Leastways”? Labeled as dialect. “Nother”? Used chiefly in speech or informal prose. And “irregardless”? Yes, it is a word, but it is a word with a bad reputation. Don’t use it.
Don’t have time to look it up or don’t always have a three-pound, hard-cover dictionary in your hip pocket? On the internet you can check Merriam-Webster Online at m-w.com
Friday, July 4, 2008
Which vs. that
“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”
—Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) from the 1942 movie, Casablanca
When Rick says this line in Casablanca, he is narrowing down, or restricting, his discussion from many possible gin joints down to the one he owns. In other words, of all the gin joints it could have been, she walked into that particular one. This concept of mentioning an item of which there are many, then adding more information
to narrow it down to the specific one you mean, is called “restricting the discussion.” From this concept comes the grammatical word for this: restrictive.
Why do we need to understand the concept of “restrictive”? Because it helps us know when to use “which” and when to use “that” when we are adding additional description to a sentence.
The words "that" and "which" are both used to add further description after a noun in a sentence. The word "that" is used when the additional information is needed in order to restrict the discussion down to the exact noun that is meant. "Which" is used to add extra information that is not really needed in order to identify the exact noun.
Let’s look at a specific example.
A. “The river is very muddy today.”
B. “The river that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana is very muddy today.”
As a reader of sentence A, you are probably wondering, “what river?” The noun “river” could mean any river in the world. You need more information to help you identify exactly what river I am talking about. When I add “that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana” in sentence B, you probably now realize exactly what river I mean: the Mississippi. The clause “that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana” narrows my discussion down, or restricts it, from all the possible rivers in all the world to the one I am talking about: the Mississippi. The word that is used to begin what is called a restrictive clause.
Here are two different examples:
C. The Atlantic Ocean separates England from the United States.
D. The Atlantic Ocean, which is sometimes called The Big Pond, separates England from the United States.
The word "which" adds information that is not needed to restrict the discussion. When I start sentence C with “The Atlantic Ocean,” I have already specified the exact ocean. You do not need any more information to help you identify exactly which gin joint—I mean ocean—I am referring to. In other words, no further restriction is needed to make my meaning clear. But I just felt like adding further description or information, so I added “which is sometimes called The Big Pond” in sentence D. I put this additional information inside two commas to indicate that it is not really necessary.
You can think of the two commas around a nonrestrictive clause as miniature parentheses, indicating that the clause is merely parenthetical. You could take out the part of the sentence between the commas, and the reader would still understand the sentence and not be left wondering what you were talking about.
Use this little chart as a reminder:
That is restrictive (and essential)and has no commas.
Which is nonrestrictive (and nonessential) and has commas.
—Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) from the 1942 movie, Casablanca
When Rick says this line in Casablanca, he is narrowing down, or restricting, his discussion from many possible gin joints down to the one he owns. In other words, of all the gin joints it could have been, she walked into that particular one. This concept of mentioning an item of which there are many, then adding more information
to narrow it down to the specific one you mean, is called “restricting the discussion.” From this concept comes the grammatical word for this: restrictive.
Why do we need to understand the concept of “restrictive”? Because it helps us know when to use “which” and when to use “that” when we are adding additional description to a sentence.
The words "that" and "which" are both used to add further description after a noun in a sentence. The word "that" is used when the additional information is needed in order to restrict the discussion down to the exact noun that is meant. "Which" is used to add extra information that is not really needed in order to identify the exact noun.
Let’s look at a specific example.
A. “The river is very muddy today.”
B. “The river that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana is very muddy today.”
As a reader of sentence A, you are probably wondering, “what river?” The noun “river” could mean any river in the world. You need more information to help you identify exactly what river I am talking about. When I add “that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana” in sentence B, you probably now realize exactly what river I mean: the Mississippi. The clause “that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana” narrows my discussion down, or restricts it, from all the possible rivers in all the world to the one I am talking about: the Mississippi. The word that is used to begin what is called a restrictive clause.
Here are two different examples:
C. The Atlantic Ocean separates England from the United States.
D. The Atlantic Ocean, which is sometimes called The Big Pond, separates England from the United States.
The word "which" adds information that is not needed to restrict the discussion. When I start sentence C with “The Atlantic Ocean,” I have already specified the exact ocean. You do not need any more information to help you identify exactly which gin joint—I mean ocean—I am referring to. In other words, no further restriction is needed to make my meaning clear. But I just felt like adding further description or information, so I added “which is sometimes called The Big Pond” in sentence D. I put this additional information inside two commas to indicate that it is not really necessary.
You can think of the two commas around a nonrestrictive clause as miniature parentheses, indicating that the clause is merely parenthetical. You could take out the part of the sentence between the commas, and the reader would still understand the sentence and not be left wondering what you were talking about.
Use this little chart as a reminder:
That is restrictive (and essential)and has no commas.
Which is nonrestrictive (and nonessential) and has commas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
