2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
No sentence fragments.
Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.
And the last one...
32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out. ]
They're used for quotes inside of quotes. Headlines and captions (which are not running text, also called body text) are, by convention, assumed to be in quotes that you can't see -- they're implicit rather than explicit. So single quotes are used in headlines and captions, too.
There are different formal styles for these things but NOT for the use of single quotes in body text.
Some of them _are_ funny. But I've seen the list dozens of times and none of examples I've seen have as many nonsense rules on it. Considering the abysmal level of knowledge of grammar and style in this country I'm afraid someone is likely to take this stuff seriously. The OP obviously did (although his intent was humorous).
As for the single-quotes in running text, in my world it is an accepted way of indicating irony.
Now, shall we reach for our stylebooks and take it outside?
And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific purpose. The latter seems enough to justify them to me. They are also more economical than using the phrase 'so-called'. (And there's another common use for them. To set off material in which the meta-meaning rather than the literal meaning is what is important.)
Now, and more to the point. Are you seriously prepared to defend every rule on that list?
I just don't take it that seriously. 'Too many years of copyediting behind me to get excited about it. Like, that's an arrant pedantry up with which I will not put, or something like that. d8-)
The "rules," in addition to being funny, are mostly bad rules. Rick is right about that. But that isn't the point, I don't think. I think the point was to have some fun with rules. That they are mostly goofy rules in the first place is part of the joke. I think. Anyway, that's how I read them.
Sorry Ed, irony or implied disagreement one of the specific uses for single quotes.
It's not at all clear that double quotes the proper punctuation. At least not in the United States. The sources are divided.
As a practical matter, single quotes clarify the writer's intentions. Double quotes indicate a direct quotation (and presumably that the writer has accepted the material at fact value) Single quotes may or may not enclose a directly quoted word or phrase and but they indicate irony, disagreement or that the meta-meaning of the word or phrase is what is being discussed.
Since it contributes to clarity, I'll continue to use single quotes, thank you.
It shouldn't be. It's extremely common.
In context, it was meant as a cheap shot, not as humor -- which is about all this guy is capable of. Frankly I doubt you believe it was anything else, considering the OP's history and posting style. Unless, of course, you kill-filed him so long ago you've forgotten what he's like.
And the comment on in-line quotes wasn't analytical?
Look, if you want to disagree with me, fine. If you want to defend the twit that posted the original message, also fine. But do us both a favor and address the real issue. Snide ill-becomes you, as does an air of assumed innocence.
Jesus, all that happened there is that you got pedantic about what was really a joke. Notice the subject line: Cliff was just passing on something funny that he thought I'd get a kick out of, and it was worth a chuckle. I welcome all chuckles and chortles, and side-splitters, too, when I can find them.
Then you tacked on a cheap ad hominem, so I popped a mild one back at you. Pedantic remarks about grammar that are themselves ungrammatical are worth a mild pop, no? Ad hominems are, too.
Now, I don't want to get into a pissing contest about single- versus double quotation marks. I live with style manuals all day long and I'm not here for a busman's holiday. I'm paid right now as a copy editor, although I do as much writing. Just to settle some dust, I just checked Chicago style, AMA, and Modern Language Association style, plus Brittain's _Punctuation for Clarity_, and I see no mention of the use of single quotes as you're describing. In fact, they use double quotes for all of those circumstances, except that MLA style has a weird one that I haven't seen before: they use single quotes for translation of a foreign word when the translation follows the foreign word "with no intervening punctuation." I think they cooked that one up over a case of Chardonnay. The other major style manuals make no mention of it.
I started writing for a big, classy publisher 30 years ago, and the AP style manual was forced down my throat then. NYT style was our secondary reference. That's where I learned about the use of single quotes in headlines and captions. Both manuals agreed on that point.
So, I'm really curious about where you came up with this "meta meaning" stuff. That's a term from linguistics. Maybe it's in the Style Manual for Linguists. 'Don't know. I've never heard of it if they publish one.
Of course, we all see the (mis)use of single quotation marks in NG messages. We aren't writing for publication here, and it's fun to loosen up. But it was worth a pop in exchange for your cheap ad hominem, and it was funny because you threw in the "professional writer" line. Single quotes used as you're defending them are not literate. Professional writers might use them in a NG message, but they wouldn't seriously cook up a bunch of baloney to defend them if someone called attention to the misuse. There might be a copy editor out there who knows better. So I'll assume you're just trying to push a point to see if you can get away with it. d8-)
Okay, first I owe you (and Cliff) an apology. Since I long ago kill-filed Cliff as a useless twit, I don't see his original messages. (Or at least I shouldn't. I need to check that.) When I saw the message, I thought he had posted another of his drive-bys aimed at a third party.
About five minutes after I posted my last message, it occurred to me that I might have gotten that wrong. As indeed I did. So I owe you an apology for that.
Oh hardly a cheap shot. Nor in my opinion an ad hominem. It was the result of long experience with the individual's posting style -- and the fact that he prefers drive-bys to serious discussion. So a drive-by warrants a drive-by.
However in this case I jumped to a conclusion.
Feel free to defend him if you must. But don't you think it would be more appropriate to actually defend him instead of taking a cheap shot at me in return? Making me look bad doesn't make this person look good, after all.
so I popped a mild one back at you.
The problem, of course, is that my comment was not ungrammatical, at least not from my standpoint. It is a common -- and very useful -- usage. I had never heard it questioned until you posted the comment.
And yet as the sources I cited indicate single quotes are commonly used in that fashion. I could have multiplied examples. I realize the style manuals you refer to don't use single quotes in that way, but that leads us into the area of descriptive versus prescriptive usage.
My personal criterion is simple. If the usage contributes to clarity, then use it. If not, it is at best suspect. The use of single quotes in this fashion pretty obviously improves clarity.
The problem with double quotes in these uses is that they are easily mistaken for direct quotations. This isn't a theoretical problem. I have had it happen to me. As you correctly point out, in these uses you are not necessarily directly quoting anyone. Even if you happen to be directly quoting, as I was, the important point was not that the wording was exact but the disagreement.
In fact, they use double quotes for all of those circumstances,
I learned it in journalism school sometime earlier than that. Then I had it reinforced when I worked for the AP. (You have _no_ idea how crotchety the New York copy desk can be.) But, as I say I have been using the convention for years and no one ever questioned it before.
NYT style was our secondary
It's more commonly referred to as the "use-mention distinction". (See:
formatting link
It apparently originated in philosophy, but it occurs in linguistics and many other fields. It is also common in ordinary writing.
Since I was a lowly journalism major and am now a lowly free-lance writer, I leave a discussion of what is 'literate' to my betters. I will simply note that it make a useful distinction which is extremely common in all forms of writing. It is also quite well-understood.
Did you bother to read the references I cited? You may not agree with them, but using single quotes in these circumstances is both a common and approved use. And, to repeat, one which aids clarity.
just trying to push
Whether you like it or not, Ed, it is both a common and a useful convention. Since it is useful I intend to keep using it until someone who signs my checks tells me otherwise.
And I repeat the key question: Does it in any way detract from clarity?
But those rules remind me of how we used to write in JHS. I personally think they are excellent *guidelines*. With skill and talent, maybe they become less relevant. But maybe it's just the lousy *thinking* behind so much writing that makes what might have been otherwise good writing ultimately useless.
What I wanna know is, What monkey(s) wrote the Fadal Manual?? Goodgawd.... And, it probably follows Cliff's rules to boot. Go figger.
There ya' go. Good thinking is all you really need. If you can think clearly and explain yourself reasonably well, leave it to the proofreaders and copy editors to formalize it.
Goodgawd....
I haven't read a Fadal manual in twenty years, but, in those days, I think they were squirrel monkeys.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.