Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

The second should be single-quotes, as it's not actual dialogue.

I disagreed when I read this, and still do. Should be double quotes for both if the writer is following the American standard. But, all standards are in flux, according to this article. The reasons for flux suggested include making shit up, crowdsourcing answers, and laziness or efficiency in not having to hit the shift key. The author ends up recommending sticking with the "double quote for everything except a quote within a quote" standard. Fascinating article!

I disagreed when I read this, and still do.

The single purpose of punctuation is to make text readable as intended by the writer. Using double quotes for 'everything' goes against that purpose because it fails to distinguish quotes from dialogue. There are multiple standards and most have clear rules for when to use single or double quotes.

A little advise when offering URLs: check the date of the article, your link is pretty old (2014). These are more recent (2020):
https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/faqs/use-double-quotes
https://proofreadanywhere.com/single-quotes-vs-double-quotes/
And don't offer .amp pages. It's another google travesty that fortunately failed.

Thanks for the reply. Love it when people help me think!

The single purpose of punctuation is to make text readable as intended by the writer.

Umm... Really? Are you sure? I'm not picking a fight here; I'm really asking. Here's why I'm asking. First, there's no citation for that statement. (Not a problem! No need to back everything up with citations -- this is a forum!) But, without a citation, I'm taking this as your shorthand for punctuation, and I agree with it in some ways, but I think it needs a little context.

Specifically, there is nothing inherently helpful about punctuation. It's artificial. People have to learn to interpret it, and they learn in the context of those standards. So, if an author doesn't follow a standard, it jumps out to those who are familiar with it and can throw them out of a story or raise questions about the author's skill. (The latter is probably more important for professional, non-fiction works. Most of us have read stories where we overlooked a lot of grammar or spelling or word choice errors because, "Damn! That's a great story!")

A little advise when offering URLs: check the date of the article, your link is pretty old (2014).

Thanks for the advice, but, yeah, I know. "Pretty old" is relative. For some scientific fields such as psychology or climate science, a seven-year-old cite would provoke me to go look for current research. And, even then, it would be topic specific. For rules of the English language, not so much. And, as I said and the article I cited made clear, the rules seem to be in flux. I still came away with the judgment that both quotes in the OP were correctly punctuated for American English, and I've yet to see a "standard" that says they are incorrect. In any event, by the shorthand of do they work for the reader, I think they would for the overwhelming majority of those accustomed to reading American English.

I read both your citations. The APA Style is for psychology, and widely used in other scientific fields, but does not seem to be a common standard for fiction. The author in your second cite Uses the Chicago Manual of Style. She specifically notes that CMOS does not recommend the use of single quotes for words not being used for their meaning. That construction in her post is awkward, but I read it to mean that one should stick with double quotes, which was what the post I cited suggested.

Finally, why should I worry about whether a url I use as a link is .amp? I had never heard this, did a quick search, and didn't find anything that suggested using .amp would cause problems for forum users who wanted to follow a link. It appeared the impact is on mobile devices, and the link I used works fine on my phone in Opera. So, maybe there are things I don't know? Happy to be educated on this, but right now I can't find a reason why a link to a .amp page would cause problems for forum users.

Specifically, there is nothing inherently helpful about punctuation. It's artificial. People have to learn to interpret it, and they learn in the context of those standards.

We'll have to disagree on that. I'm not an author, just a reader, but while reading I depend on how the text is formatted to distinguish between telling, description, dialogue, etc. Punctuation is an essential part of that. Of course you have to learn it but most authors use the same standards so it becomes automatic.

... "Pretty old" is relative ... For rules of the English language, not so much.

There's very little as fluid as language. Every year new words are added and the meaning/interpretation of older words changes over time. There have been several recent discussions here on the forum where such things are mentioned. Just recently there was a short discussion about how to address 'colored people', 'blacks', 'natives', etc where the once normal naming very quickly changed to offensive language. Some terms not even lasted 2 years.

Finally, why should I worry about whether a url I use as a link is .amp? I had never heard this, did a quick search, and didn't find anything that suggested using .amp would cause problems for forum users who wanted to follow a link.

For now an .amp link won't cause problems but it's yet another of those devious tries from google to get a lock on internet use and following people. Understand that AMP initially was 100% controlled by google. Use an amp page and you were tagged by google because they were cached by google. It changed because many people found it objectionable and it never became what google wanted it to be. They turned it open source and it's now slowly dying. Google created it as a competitor for facebook who's trying to do the same crap. In short, my objection to amp is a privacy thing.

By-the-way, the two links I added were just as examples for more recent articles and it shows the overlap of basic rules in different standards. They were not intended to show what the acceptable rules should be, that's always up to the author.

We'll have to disagree on that. I'm not an author, just a reader, but while reading I depend on how the text is formatted to distinguish between telling, description, dialogue, etc. Punctuation is an essential part of that.

I find more agreement than disagreement! I might not have been clear, but, by "inherently," I meant, innate, intrinsic, something that is there without learning. Punctuation is like Morse code; it has meaning, but only because that meaning has been learned. With enough practice, it feels innate, necessary, obvious, but it is not; it is learned. And, when the pattern used by an author doesn't fit what we've learned, it can affect a reader's immersion in the story and, if the deviation is sufficent, even comprehension. I agree with you that authors want to use punctuation to help readers hear the written word the way the author hears it. At least for dialogue - the differences in the impact of language when spoken vs. written are way beyond this thread!

There's very little as fluid as language.

Agree that language is fluid. However, like I suggested regarding fields and topics of scientific research, the rate of change varies. Vocabulary, especially in culturally active areas is very fluid. Subject/verb agreement or placement in the sentence, not so much. The article I linked discussed the fluidity and, as I commented, the reasons for it, but still ended up on the side of double quotes - no new usage has emerged sufficiently that it has been codified into a standard. Authors make choices at the margins (as motivated the OP), but need to be consistent.

Thanks for the info on .amp. Not sure what I'll do with it but, if it is dying out, then maybe I don't need to worry about it. Privacy on the web? Yeah, that's a worry, but I fear it is also a lost cause.

Authors make choices at the margins (as motivated the OP), but need to be consistent.

Consistent, definitely! My experience is that most if not all authors here on SOL are fairly consistent. Some even explain what deviation they use from regular punctuation, for example for telepathic dialogue.

Yup. May not have made the point very well. But puncutation only helps a reader understand how the author would have the sentence read, it's because of a shared base of learning about the use of punctuation, i.e., "standards."

And, I think I remember that there are arguments that spoken language may, to some extent, be wired into the brain, but written is not, making learning the symbols and standards harder. Thus we have to teach children to read, but they pick up language without direct instruction.

I just read a piece recently talking about the old supposition that language affects how we think (as opposed to the surface symbol set that we use). The conclusion was that language does not affect how we think. People with radically divergent languages still think in essentially the same manner.

I've seen that, too. Undercuts the premise of Stranger in a Strange Land!

language affects how we think

See also The languages of Pao

See also The languages of Pao

What about the languages of "Bam"

How about a politician's stance?

OK, you got me there ;)

Specifically, there is nothing inherently helpful about punctuation.

"Let's eat, Grandma."
"Let's eat Grandma."

Not only is the punctuation helpful, it's required to understand the dialogue.

Which completely missis JoeBobMack's point that as helpful as it is, it is an artificial construct, not some law of nature.

Everybody should like puns.

Not China. China has a pun control law.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/28/china-media-watchdog-bans-wordplay-puns

The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

Should be;

The past, present, and future walked into a bar. They were tense.