Ercoupes... ?

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:16:16 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:
If you're going to criticize someone's punctuation, you had better
learn to punctuate correctly. If you live in the U.S., put commas and
periods INSIDE the quotation marks, like this:

You'll find that rule in any grammar text published in the U.S.

lose the word "error," .... parenthetical phrase after "other,"
......you must put another comma after "ercoupe."

I always thought that putting the punctuation marks inside the
quotation marks was strange... I don't agree with that rule, so I'm
quite likely to intentionally break it in my writing...

I always thought that putting the punctuation marks inside the
quotation marks was strange...

I was taught that printers, back in Colonial days, thought that
periods and commas looked "lonely" if outside the quotation marks, so
they began putting them inside for aesthetic reasons.

I don't agree with that rule, so I'm quite likely to intentionally break it in my writing...

If you move to Canada or any part of the former British Empire, you
won't be breaking the rule. Or, you can just break the rule. There
is no penalty, unless you happen to writing to a prospective employer.

vince norris

if'n you is about the bizness of
correcting newsgroups you're gunna be real busy.

You're right about that; but I never comment on anyone's writing
unless he was criticizing someone else's writing.

vince norris

I was taught that printers, back in Colonial days, thought that
periods and commas looked "lonely" if outside the quotation marks, so
they began putting them inside for aesthetic reasons.

My information is that in the old days, the thin periods and commas were
more delicate, and lasted longer if they were protected by the larger
quotes and parens. This is no longer an issue, and I stick with logic.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

oh, and by the way mr. smarty pants spell checker norris (big grin
here),

i got to wondering why the by-golly national air and space guys would
be spelling it "CASTORING" (see previous link) thinking that they've
probably got a decent spell checker there somewhere so i consulted my
AMERICAN HERITAGE-FOURTH ED.(big 20-pound school type) and by golly
there it is QUOTE: caster 1) one that casts or 2) castor: a small
wheel on a swivel. i guess you can put a castor in your wankel if you
like. it's ok with me.

dan




vincent p. norris wrote:
very sloppy punctuation in the creation of that run-on sentence.
lose the comma after the word "error", replace the comma with a period.
then, if you're going to create a parenthetical phrase after "other",
you must put another comma after "ercoupe. there; that's much better.

If you're going to criticize someone's punctuation, you had better
learn to punctuate correctly. If you live in the U.S., put commas and
periods INSIDE the quotation marks, like this:

You'll find that rule in any grammar text published in the U.S.

lose the word "error," .... parenthetical phrase after "other,"
......you must put another comma after "ercoupe."

And BTW, "Lose" and "Ercoupe" should be capitalized; and "castor" is a
kind of oil used in rotary engines. The word you want is "caster."

vince norris

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:52:46 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:
There is no penalty, unless you happen to writing to a prospective
employer.

I feel rather certain that my resume contains no quotation marks
whatsoever in it, so the likelihood of being presented with that
delemma is rather remote... As a software developer, the punctuation
marks go outside the quotation marks... That's good enough for me...

I was taught that printers, back in Colonial days, thought that
periods and commas looked "lonely" if outside the quotation marks, so
they began putting them inside for aesthetic reasons.

My information is that in the old days, the thin periods and commas were
more delicate, and lasted longer if they were protected by the larger
quotes and parens.

That sounds reasonable, Jose, until you consider that whatever piece
of type comes last in the sentence, it is "protected" by the space
(is it called an M Quad?) that comes next. Each piece of type in the
line is "protected" by the pieces on each side of it.

I'm not defending my explanation, btw; I don't know whether or not
it's true.

vince norris

whatever piece
of type comes last in the sentence, it is "protected" by the space
(is it called an M Quad?) that comes next.

Perhaps words got moved around whole?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
My information is that in the old days, the thin periods and commas were
more delicate, and lasted longer if they were protected by the larger
quotes and parens.

That sounds reasonable, Jose, until you consider that whatever piece
of type comes last in the sentence, it is "protected" by the space
(is it called an M Quad?) that comes next. Each piece of type in the
line is "protected" by the pieces on each side of it.

A space cannot protect a printing character. The component being stressed
is the printing portion of the character, the part raised above (and
substantially smaller than) the main body of the type element. The point is
that during the printing process, each character of type experiences a force
against the printed surface, and for the more delicate characters (such as
periods and commas), this force would be unevenly distributed, putting a
slight lateral component to the force, when there is just a space on one
side.

Taken singly, this force is slight and seemingly inconsequential. But keep
whacking the plate over and over again, and eventually it's going to cause
the character portion of the type element to fail prematurely. According to
the theory that Jose is describing, by placing the more delicate characters
between two printing characters, the lateral force is reduced or even
eliminated, "protecting" the more delicate character.

One possible flaw in the reasoning is that type elements are not just simple
extrusions of the character itself. Most of the time, the character surface
is at the top of a sloped raised area on the type element. So a period,
even if it's just 1mm across where it prints, may actually have a 5mm (for
example, or even larger) base. One would think that would provide extra
strength, helping protect against damage.

However, I don't think that's necessarily an actual flaw in the reasoning,
as all of the type elements have such sloped sides, and the smaller printing
characters will still have less material than the larger ones, and may still
benefit from protection.

In any case, whether or not the theory that Jose related is correct, the
theory isn't talking about the main rectangular body of the type element,
and so just because there's a spacing type element next to a trailing
period, comma, whatever doesn't in any way serve to offer the protection
that the theory describes. If anything, the empty space is precisely what
causes the problem the theory describes.

Pete

Perhaps words got moved around whole?

Jose

I suppose that's a possibility, but probably happened too rarely to
explain changing the "rules" of punctuation.

A space cannot protect a printing character. The component being stressed
is the printing portion of the character, the part raised above (and
substantially smaller than) the main body of the type element.

A good point. Your argument is pretty persuasive, Peter.

vince norris