On 15 Dec 2006 08:31:21 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
<prisoner_at_war@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>Flying Tortoise wrote:
>>
>>
>> 95 in 100 .... or .... ninety-five in a hundred, never mix 'em!
>
>Well, I think the rule is that if spelling it out gets more
>"complicated" than writing the numerals, then write the numeral (and
>vice-versa). Thus, you could wind up mixing 'em in a sentence like
>"269 in a billion"....
>
>> Question marks should be placed inside the quotation marks only if the
>> material in quotes is a question. If the quote forms part of a question
>> but is not the question, then the punctuation goes outside as logic
>> dictates. Punctuation is supposed to help you read what the author
>> intends, after all!
>
>I agree. But the whole point of tucking things, including the period
>(for example, you're quoting a phrase, not the whole sentence, but you
>yourself are done with your sentence), within a quote is that it looks
>nice. Hate to be inconsistent, even if logic demands it!
>
>And what do you do to show that you're quoting a quote? Like, use
>"double" quotations marks (use them twice)?
I was taught that nested quotes get alternating double and single
quotation marks with an added space between then where they run up
into each other and always starting with double quotes.
Thusly::
He said, "I don't remember."
She told me, "He said, 'I don't remember.' "
Joe said, "She told me 'He said, "I don't remember." ' " ad infinitum.
I was also taught that parentheses and square brackets were nested the
same way, always starting with parentheses. Of course, that was back
when typewriters were high-tech, and only specialty keyboards had
curly brackets on them.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
