The British may not be able to spell words correctly (it’s color, old chap, not colour) but I think they get it mostly right when it comes to punctuation. For instance, the American style places commas and periods inside quotation marks, except in situations when it could cause confusion (such as the quotation of web addresses). But we wouldn’t have such problems if we simply adopted the more sensible British style of putting quotation marks inside other punctuation marks.
At Slate, Ben Yagoda observes that the British method dominates on the Internet and considers the reasons why:
Why has this convention become so popular? I offer two reasons, one small and one big. The small one is a byproduct of working with computers, and writing computer code. In these endeavors, one is often instructed to “input” a string of characters, and sometimes (in the printed instructions) the characters are enclosed in quotation marks. Sticking a period or comma in front of the closing quotation marks could clearly have bad consequences. So, for example, the Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition), which otherwise endorses the American way— “This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906)”—makes an exception in the case of computer instruction, illustrated by:
name your file “appendix A, v. 10″.
But the main reason is that the British way simply makes more sense. Indeed, since at least since the 1960s a common designation for that style has been “logical punctuation.”
Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade my fellow First Things editors to allow us to adopt this more logical approach.
May 12th, 2011 | 12:57 pm
I submit that the British model often prevails on the Internet because
The British style is more logical
Engineers and computer scientists prize logic
At its origins and up until around ten years ago, engineers and computer scientists were the leading figures on the Internet
Okay, that’s not actually a syllogism. I never was any good at logic.
May 12th, 2011 | 3:12 pm
Well, here’s a post that I agree with 100%!
May 12th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
[...] 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 [...]
May 12th, 2011 | 3:33 pm
The British style is sometimes more logical, sometimes not. I place punctuation inside when it pertains to the quote, (usually) outside when not.
May 12th, 2011 | 6:05 pm
I never thought it the rule to always put punctuation inside the quotation mark. I thought the punctuation mark should go inside the quote only if, in fact, it is part of the quotation.
It seems reasonable to keep punctuation inside the quotation mark when you are quoting a complete sentence. If, however, you are quoting a word or a phrase, it seems reasonable to keep punctuation outside of the quotation marks. I always thought this was standard.
May 13th, 2011 | 8:10 am
I learned a hard lesson in college: know your professor’s preferences. His way is the correct way!
May 13th, 2011 | 8:16 am
But certainly the Brits are not right on the “serial comma.” (or, if you prefer, “serial comma”.). It is much clearer to write “a, b, and c” (the usual American style) rather than “a, b and c” (the British style). In the latter, British case, you can’t know if a is being grouped with “b and c” as a unit or if three units are being grouped.
May 13th, 2011 | 4:37 pm
Michael Root: Isn’t the serial comma also know as the Oxford comma? I’m assuming that’s not Oxford, Mississippi.
May 15th, 2011 | 11:48 am
It is not possible to write about UNIX using American punctuation, without the reader being lead astray. Switching to the American system every time a sentence is free of UNIX commands makes little sense.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact