🚀 go-pugleaf

Prisoner at War wrote:
> Hi, All:
> 
> Is it written "95 in 100 samples" or "95 in a 100 samples"?  Does "100"
> mean "one hundred" or "a hundred"?  If you were to read the statement
> "95 in 100 samples" out loud, what do you say for "100"?
> 
> And what's the deal with stuff like putting question marks inside
> quotation marks?  I understand that typographically it looks better to
> tuck everything within quotes, though logically it might lead to the
> implication that the question mark is a part of the quote (say, in the
> case of the title of an article).  I've seen it done both ways,
> actually, on the NYT website....
> 
> 
> TIA!
> 
You've cast your net wide for groups, haven't you!

There's little of relevance to sci.lang here, but as best I can answer:

'100' is read 'a hundred' or (perhaps more formally) 'one hundred'. I 
can't off-hand think of a context in which it would be read 'hundred', 
though there probably are some.

'The deal' about quotation marks is that somebody to whom others accord 
authority has decreed that it shall be done one way or the other. Or 
perhaps two someones have decreed differently.
As I've said in another post on sci.lang recently, this is etiquette, 
not linguistics.

Colin

In article <1166108452.870091.273470@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi, All:

>Is it written "95 in 100 samples" or "95 in a 100 samples"?  Does "100"
>mean "one hundred" or "a hundred"?  If you were to read the statement
>"95 in 100 samples" out loud, what do you say for "100"?

In this case, who cares?  It conveys the same meaning.

Likewise, in the simple case of the binomial theorem, 

	(x + y)^2 = x^2 + 2xy + y^2,

it does not matter if the "y" is pronounced "why" or "ygrec".

>And what's the deal with stuff like putting question marks inside
>quotation marks?  I understand that typographically it looks better to
>tuck everything within quotes, though logically it might lead to the
>implication that the question mark is a part of the quote (say, in the
>case of the title of an article).  I've seen it done both ways,
>actually, on the NYT website....

I sometimes follow the typographical "rules", but not always,
and in fact mostly not.  Try to get the meaning across in
the written language.

>TIA!



-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

Prisoner at War wrote:

> Hi, All:
>
> Is it written "95 in 100 samples" or "95 in a 100 samples"?  Does "100"
> mean "one hundred" or "a hundred"?  If you were to read the statement
> "95 in 100 samples" out loud, what do you say for "100"?
>
> And what's the deal with stuff like putting question marks inside
> quotation marks?  I understand that typographically it looks better to
> tuck everything within quotes, though logically it might lead to the
> implication that the question mark is a part of the quote (say, in the
> case of the title of an article).  I've seen it done both ways,
> actually, on the NYT website....
>
>
> TIA!

95 in 100 .... or .... ninety-five in a hundred, never mix 'em!

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!

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166108452.870091.273470@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hi, All:
>
> Is it written "95 in 100 samples" or "95 in a 100 samples"?

"95 in 100 samples"

> Does "100"
> mean "one hundred" or "a hundred"?

Either one.

> If you were to read the statement
> "95 in 100 samples" out loud, what do you say for "100"?

"a hundred" informally; "one hunderd" formally.

> And what's the deal with stuff like putting question marks inside
> quotation marks?

The question mark goes inside the quotation mark if the quoted material is a
question:

He asked me, "What's your name?"
Did he say "Now is the time"?

In the US, it's the convention that periods and commas always go inside
quotation marks, colons and semicolons always go outside, and question marks
and excalamation marks go where it is most logical to place them.

Colin Fine wrote:
>
> You've cast your net wide for groups, haven't you!

Well, you know, it's usually the little coterie of regulars who
frequent newsgroups, it appears, so I thought that I'd have a better
chance at a variety of opinions this way.  Besides, a "multiple
discipline" approach is often interesting.

> There's little of relevance to sci.lang here, but as best I can answer:

So it now seems, but at the time I just thought that maybe there could
be some "linguistic principle" involved.  I'd have tried a psychology
newsgroup, too, but alas, google seems to think cross-posting more than
five groups is spamming.

> '100' is read 'a hundred' or (perhaps more formally) 'one hundred'. I
> can't off-hand think of a context in which it would be read 'hundred',
> though there probably are some.

I wonder if it's the same in other languages.  In Chinese, though, it's
almost always "one hundred" -- there are no articles, definite and
infinite, in Chinese.  I say almost always because it's conceivable
that in some poem might use it in an "abbreviated" fashion.

> 'The deal' about quotation marks is that somebody to whom others accord
> authority has decreed that it shall be done one way or the other. Or
> perhaps two someones have decreed differently.
> As I've said in another post on sci.lang recently, this is etiquette,
> not linguistics.

Well, even etiquette usually follows some kind of logic.  The
assumptions may be arbitrary -- like toilet paper over or under -- but
there is logic leading to the final outcome.  I tend to stick with
tucking things within quotes just because it looks better (more tidy),
except in cases where doing so would be misleading (question marks
which are mine and not part of the original quote, say).

> Colin

Herman Rubin wrote:
>
>
> In this case, who cares?  It conveys the same meaning.
>
> Likewise, in the simple case of the binomial theorem,
>
> 	(x + y)^2 = x^2 + 2xy + y^2,
>
> it does not matter if the "y" is pronounced "why" or "ygrec".

Depends on the context.  Obviously, if one did not know French or the
history of Latin "y" saying "y grec" could be confusing.

Me, I was typing something up and I tend to proofread by reading out
loud (weird, but sometimes only my ear will catch a mistake).  It
suddenly occurred to me, hey, is there a difference between saying "a
hundred" or "one hundred" when reading the sentence "95 in 100
samples"...like, denotatively it means the same, but maybe there's some
connotative difference?

Frivolous, yes, but it's usenet.  =)

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)?

Colin Fine wrote:
>
> You've cast your net wide for groups, haven't you!

Well, you know, it's usually the little coterie of regulars who
frequent newsgroups, it appears, so I thought that I'd have a better
chance at a variety of opinions this way.  Besides, a "multiple
discipline" approach is often interesting.

> There's little of relevance to sci.lang here, but as best I can answer:

So it now seems, but at the time I just thought that maybe there could
be some "linguistic principle" involved.  I'd have tried a psychology
newsgroup, too, but alas, google seems to think cross-posting more than
five groups is spamming.

> '100' is read 'a hundred' or (perhaps more formally) 'one hundred'. I
> can't off-hand think of a context in which it would be read 'hundred',
> though there probably are some.

I wonder if it's the same in other languages.  In Chinese, though, it's
almost always "one hundred" -- there are no articles, definite and
infinite, in Chinese.  I say almost always because it's conceivable
that in some poem might use it in an "abbreviated" fashion.

> 'The deal' about quotation marks is that somebody to whom others accord
> authority has decreed that it shall be done one way or the other. Or
> perhaps two someones have decreed differently.
> As I've said in another post on sci.lang recently, this is etiquette,
> not linguistics.

Well, even etiquette usually follows some kind of logic.  The
assumptions may be arbitrary -- like toilet paper over or under -- but
there is logic leading to the final outcome.  I tend to stick with
tucking things within quotes just because it looks better (more tidy),
except in cases where doing so would be misleading (question marks
which are mine and not part of the original quote, say).

> Colin

Prisoner at War wrote:
> 
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> >
> >
> > In this case, who cares?  It conveys the same meaning.
> >
> > Likewise, in the simple case of the binomial theorem,
> >
> >       (x + y)^2 = x^2 + 2xy + y^2,
> >
> > it does not matter if the "y" is pronounced "why" or "ygrec".
> 
> Depends on the context.  Obviously, if one did not know French or the
> history of Latin "y" saying "y grec" could be confusing.

Perhaps Herman Rubin's point was this.  The binomial theorem says this:

     (x + squiggle)^2 = x^2 + 2x*squiggle + squiggle^2,

where in place of "squiggle" you write some convenient symbol and utter
some convenient sound.  The information you convey is not adversely
affected by (reasonable) choices of symbol/sound.

(If that wasn't HR's point then my apologies!)

-- 
"The Academy is too large and too vulgar.  Whenever I have gone 
there, there have been either so many people that I have not been 
able to see the pictures, which was dreadful, or so many pictures 
that I have not been able to see the people, which was worse."

Prisoner at War wrote:

> And what do you do to show that you're quoting a quote?  Like, use
> "double" quotations marks (use them twice)?

In the US, the main quotation marks are " " and a quote within-a-quote
gets ' ' (and so on, alternating as many times as necessary).

Did I write, "'Prisoner at War' inquired, 'What do you do to show that
your'e quoting a quote?'"?

In British usage, the outermost quotation marks are ' '.

Yes, I do think that that's his point, but in math there isn't any
connotative dimension to symbols (unless you wish to name a variable
"cumgirl" instead of simply "x" or "y" or, even, "y grec").  But I
guess there isn't any connotative difference between "one hundred" and
"a hundred," except, as some have pointed out, one seems formal and the
other more informal.



Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps Herman Rubin's point was this.  The binomial theorem says this:
>
>      (x + squiggle)^2 = x^2 + 2x*squiggle + squiggle^2,
>
> where in place of "squiggle" you write some convenient symbol and utter
> some convenient sound.  The information you convey is not adversely
> affected by (reasonable) choices of symbol/sound.
>
> (If that wasn't HR's point then my apologies!)
>
> --
> "The Academy is too large and too vulgar.  Whenever I have gone
> there, there have been either so many people that I have not been
> able to see the pictures, which was dreadful, or so many pictures
> that I have not been able to see the people, which was worse."

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.

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

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
> In the US, the main quotation marks are " " and a quote within-a-quote
> gets ' ' (and so on, alternating as many times as necessary).
>
> Did I write, "'Prisoner at War' inquired, 'What do you do to show that
> your'e quoting a quote?'"?
>
> In British usage, the outermost quotation marks are ' '.


Goodness, I'm getting very silly in my old age.

Thanks, you're right.

Indeed, it's all coming back to me now!

Thanks everyone...for the reminders!



Barbara Bailey wrote:
>
>
> 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

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??

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

Flying Tortoise wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> 
>> Hi, All:
>>
>> Is it written "95 in 100 samples" or "95 in a 100 samples"?  Does "100"
>> mean "one hundred" or "a hundred"?  If you were to read the statement
>> "95 in 100 samples" out loud, what do you say for "100"?
>>
>> And what's the deal with stuff like putting question marks inside
>> quotation marks?  I understand that typographically it looks better to
>> tuck everything within quotes, though logically it might lead to the
>> implication that the question mark is a part of the quote (say, in the
>> case of the title of an article).  I've seen it done both ways,
>> actually, on the NYT website....
>>
>>
>> TIA!
> 
> 95 in 100 .... or .... ninety-five in a hundred, never mix 'em!
> 
> 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!
> 

Ah. You've found somebody who is willing to give you a clear 
prescription. Congratulations.
Now all you have to do is decide whether to trust his/her authority.

(I'm not casting aspersions on Flying Tortoise: I'm just not interested 
in prescriptive answers or questions that elicit them).

Colin

Prisoner at War wrote:


> Well, even etiquette usually follows some kind of logic.  The
> assumptions may be arbitrary -- like toilet paper over or under -- but
> there is logic leading to the final outcome.  I tend to stick with
> tucking things within quotes just because it looks better (more tidy),
> except in cases where doing so would be misleading (question marks
> which are mine and not part of the original quote, say).
> 
At least as often, etiquette follows no kind of logic except the one of 
<soapbox>making it difficult or awkward to learn and comply with, 
because otherwise it won't serve its primary purpose of marking out the 
elite from the would-be elite</soapbox>. It often comes prepackaged with 
elaborate rationalisations though.

Colin

Barbara Bailey wrote:
> 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.

Selectrics, and some earlier IBM typewriters that had 92 rather than 88
characters, had square brackets, but before then, linguists (who use
them to enclose phonetic transcriptions) typed them with
slash-backspace-underscore-up two clicks-underscore-down two clicks.
You can see them throughout the typed publications that were very
common in the olden days.

In article <1166200279.810244.244340@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
 "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Flying Tortoise wrote:
[snip]
> And what do you do to show that you're quoting a quote?  Like, use
> "double" quotations marks (use them twice)?

One British convention (Oxford, IIRC) used single-quotes for the 
outermost quotation, double-quotes for a quoted quotation, triple-quotes 
for the next level, etc.

E.g., 'I told him, ''Never say '''Bugger!''' in polite company.'' '

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------

Barb Knox wrote:
> In article <1166200279.810244.244340@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Flying Tortoise wrote:
> [snip]
> > And what do you do to show that you're quoting a quote?  Like, use
> > "double" quotations marks (use them twice)?
>
> One British convention (Oxford, IIRC) used single-quotes for the
> outermost quotation, double-quotes for a quoted quotation, triple-quotes
> for the next level, etc.
>
> E.g., 'I told him, ''Never say '''Bugger!''' in polite company.'' '

Now that, I have never seen!

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Barb Knox wrote:
>> In article <1166200279.810244.244340@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
>>  "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Flying Tortoise wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> And what do you do to show that you're quoting a quote?  Like, use
>>> "double" quotations marks (use them twice)?
>> One British convention (Oxford, IIRC) used single-quotes for the
>> outermost quotation, double-quotes for a quoted quotation, triple-quotes
>> for the next level, etc.
>>
>> E.g., 'I told him, ''Never say '''Bugger!''' in polite company.'' '
> 
> Now that, I have never seen!
> 
I believe this is the convention followed by John Barth in his short 
story Menelaiad in his book "Lost in the Funhouse".
In this story the convention is taken to seven layers, with a lot of 
jumping back up from level 7 to level 3 etc.

Invented example, annotated with levels:
  ...came out of the woods'''', said he.''' '' '. Peter paused and
4444444444444444444444444    3333333333   2  1  00000000000000000
continued: ' ''John had now told his story...
00000000000 1  222222222222222222222222222

If I remember correctly, he then starts to place some of these quotation 
marks in parentheses, so that you are unsure of which level you are at.

Reminiscent of Lisp programming.

--Arne

Arne Dehli Halvorsen wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Barb Knox wrote:
> >> In article <1166200279.810244.244340@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>,
> >>  "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Flying Tortoise wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> And what do you do to show that you're quoting a quote?  Like, use
> >>> "double" quotations marks (use them twice)?
> >> One British convention (Oxford, IIRC) used single-quotes for the
> >> outermost quotation, double-quotes for a quoted quotation, triple-quotes
> >> for the next level, etc.
> >>
> >> E.g., 'I told him, ''Never say '''Bugger!''' in polite company.'' '
> >
> > Now that, I have never seen!
> >
> I believe this is the convention followed by John Barth in his short
> story Menelaiad in his book "Lost in the Funhouse".
> In this story the convention is taken to seven layers, with a lot of
> jumping back up from level 7 to level 3 etc.
>
> Invented example, annotated with levels:
>   ...came out of the woods'''', said he.''' '' '. Peter paused and
> 4444444444444444444444444    3333333333   2  1  00000000000000000
> continued: ' ''John had now told his story...
> 00000000000 1  222222222222222222222222222
>
> If I remember correctly, he then starts to place some of these quotation
> marks in parentheses, so that you are unsure of which level you are at.

Gee, I'm _so_ sorry I never got into contemporary art-fiction.

> Reminiscent of Lisp programming.