Joe, whatever the case might be for punctuating as the British do, the explanation for the ubiquity of the British style on the internet is surely not the necessities of correct computer coding. How many ordinary bloggers have ever written a line of code in their lives? As for Ben Yagoda’s second reason–it “makes more sense”–this is an opinion and not an explanation. It makes more sense to him, and to you. Not to anyone well-schooled in American (that is, correct) style, for whom these misplaced quotation marks outside periods and commas are a jarring sign of either a slapdash education or sheer laziness.
I started teaching college students in 1981, before the internet could be blamed for anything. I’ve seen such errors, and many more besides that cannot be excused with the claim that they’re correct “somewhere else,” in all the years since.
But while we’re wondering aloud what the editors of First Things would be willing to change, I am here and now making it my personal crusade to change the magazine’s house style on the formation of possessives of singular proper names ending in “s.” No more of this “Aquinas’ thought,” please: make it “Aquinas’s thought.” We don’t have to be total Strunk and White sticklers, but listen up: if you say two distinct ”s” sounds, spell two distinct ”s” sounds, with an apostrophe between them. And no one says “Aquinasssssssssssss” for the possessive.
May 12th, 2011 | 3:37 pm
Matthew,
I have no dog in this fight, but the article on Slate the Joe linked to made a much better argument than you’re giving it credit for. Namely, it argued that the point of many types of quotation marks is to set everything within them apart; whatever is in them is a unit. And, often, the American rule requires adding something that is not a part of the unit — a punctuation mark — inside the quotes, thus making the item inside the quote less accurate in describing its object, or at least more confusing.
And sure, to us Americans it looks silly to have the punctuation outside the quotes, but is punctuation really the place to be jingoistic in the face of a good argument?
Also, you’re totally right about the “S’s.”
May 12th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
How about we compromise. If you’ll back the British quote style I’ll support the campaign for the second “s” on possessives.
May 12th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
Only if you move the magazine to London . . .
May 12th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
Please note that the American style originally developed purely as a result of type-setting convenience. That’s why it only apples to periods and comas and not to other punctuation marks. The reason why the British style is older is because it’s actually the correct method of punctuating the language, rather than a corruption imposed upon the public merely to let typesetters save money on type.
May 12th, 2011 | 5:01 pm
I agree on the s’s ending. And I am not sure of FT’s position on this, but lists HAVE TO have the comma after the penultimate item. For example:
Augustine, Boethius, Eriugena, and Anselm
NOT
Augustine, Boethius, Eriugena and Anselm
May 12th, 2011 | 5:35 pm
Not sure I like it, mostly due to dialogue and nested quotes.
“Hello”, he said.
“G.K. Chesterton would have said and I quote, ‘A new philosophy means in practice the praise of some old vice’.”.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:57 am
The argument against ” Aquinas’s ” is that the second “s” is redundant. Intelligent people know how to pronounce the more concise ” Aquinas’ “; you don’t have to stick on an extra “s” to tell them. Conventions are not right or wrong; they are just conventions. What matters is to be consistent. Phonetics is not all there is to language. It seems affected to pronounce “Notre Dame” the correct (French) way when you are referring to the American university but it is not really wrong. Likewise to use a British typographical convention in an American setting (or vice versa) is perhaps inappropriate or unprofessional but hardly wrong.
May 13th, 2011 | 5:47 am
This is another argument for logic in language. Using punctuation to make written language work logically has to be desirable. All forms of logical punctuation, including punctilious use of apostrophes, have to be preferred.
Ethan C., that is what I tell my students. Is it true?
May 13th, 2011 | 9:10 am
Dblade, I don’t believe British style ever calls for two periods in one sentence. So your second example is probably incorrect as an example of British style, and while the first looks odd, I don’t find it particularly objectionable.
May 13th, 2011 | 9:51 am
I’m not sure vice’”. is any better, if that’s the correct usage. I like the period to be attached to the terminating word, rather than floating off in space. It makes sense when you think about the processing of words-first terminate the statement being “spoken,” then terminate the quotation.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:47 am
The apostrophe s is difficult.
I agree – use it for every singular possessive, e.g. Petraeus’s strategy, Flanders’s moustache, and Thomas’s doubts, etc.
And is there any way to encourage people from using the apostrophe s to indicate the plural of a family’s last name on a Christmas card?
e.g.Merry Christmas!
The Smith’s
I turn into a Scrooge every time I receive a card like this.
In summary
1) Use an apostrophe s for every singular possessive, even those ending in s.
2) Do not use an apostrophe s to indicate non-possessive plural.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:25 pm
Dear jm: Regarding Rule 2) The exception is for decades; for example, either “the 1930′s” or “the 1930s” is accepted in most stylebooks.
But I agree with you: I like the second one much better.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
Use both. Commas and full stops were initially used to indicate breath-pauses in speaking. That’s why colonial-era documents often seem to employ whimsical comma usages.
A comma should fall outside “scare quotes”. However, as YOS says, “Commas should fall inside the quotes when the stop is the stop of the quote itself.” Both rules are illustrated if YOS were to say, “A comma should fall outside ‘scare quotes’.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact