🚀 go-pugleaf

On 15 Dec 2006 12:52:03 -0800, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>Barbara Bailey wrote:
>> On 15 Dec 2006 08:31:21 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
>> <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> 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.
>
>That "extra space" would refer only to typewriting, and in fact I never
>encountered that instruction. In word processing, with variable-width
>fonts, the typesetter should insert a "thin space" between two adjacent
>quotation marks. Unfortunately, in MSWord the smallest space you can
>get is "1/4 em," which is much too big -- and which, moreover, is
>interpreted as a word-space, so it will happily divide lines between
>them!
>
>> 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.  
>
>Your typewriter had square brackets??

The one I learned on at home did. It was my mother's and already an
old one even in the late 60's. I think that it dated back into the
40's, and it may have had a specialty keyboard since as I recall, she
got it from the drafting department of the company that she worked for
when they bought newer ones. It's possible, since I can see the need
for square brackets in typing up specs and bids for the machinery they
designed and made.  I don't remember whether the ones at school did or
not; that would have been the early 70's.


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com