Post your grammar questions here.

[Trazalca]

Here's mine:

If I am quoting someone, and the quote is at the end of a sentence,
then where does the period go? Inside the quotation marks? Or outside?

Example 1: He said it was "not his book".
Example 2: He said it was "not his book."

Which is correct?

If I am writing dialogue with two people speaking, then in the use
of quotations, does the same rule apply as to the answer for the above question?

Example 1: "Please tell me you did not say that to him."
Example 2: "Please tell me you did not say that to him".

[kah]

The first one I am not positive about, but I would think it follows the rules of the second, which would be after the period.

[neglet]

Case 2, with dialogue, the punctuation is always inside the quotation marks.

"Payment for grammar questions accepted in chocolate," Neglet said.
Traz smiled. "Good thing I brought two bars."

For Case 1, quoted material, I checked with the Chicago Manual of Style on this one, because I've seen it both ways--meaning this is not a matter of grammar, but of style. It actually depends on your nationality. British style is to leave the punctuation outside the quote marks:

He told me I was the best at 'shaking my booty'.

American style is to include the end punctuation within the quotation:

He told me I was the best at "shaking my booty."

Of course, American style has the exception for question marks, for in that case it might change the meaning of the quotation:

What do you mean, I should "shake my booty"?

Hope that clears things up.

[Trazalca]

Case 2, with dialogue, the punctuation is always inside the quotation marks.

"Payment for grammar questions accepted in chocolate," Neglet said.
Traz smiled. "Good thing I brought two bars."

For Case 1, quoted material, I checked with the Chicago Manual of Style on this one, because I've seen it both ways--meaning this is not a matter of grammar, but of style. It actually depends on your nationality. British style is to leave the punctuation outside the quote marks:

He told me I was the best at 'shaking my booty'.

American style is to include the end punctuation within the quotation:

He told me I was the best at "shaking my booty."

Of course, American style has the exception for question marks, for in that case it might change the meaning of the quotation:

What do you mean, I should "shake my booty"?

Hope that clears things up.

Yes it does. Thanks!
:)

[rappites]

Case 2, with dialogue, the punctuation is always inside the quotation marks.

"Payment for grammar questions accepted in chocolate," Neglet said.
Traz smiled. "Good thing I brought two bars."

For Case 1, quoted material, I checked with the Chicago Manual of Style on this one, because I've seen it both ways--meaning this is not a matter of grammar, but of style. It actually depends on your nationality. British style is to leave the punctuation outside the quote marks:

He told me I was the best at 'shaking my booty'.

American style is to include the end punctuation within the quotation:

He told me I was the best at "shaking my booty."

Of course, American style has the exception for question marks, for in that case it might change the meaning of the quotation:

What do you mean, I should "shake my booty"?

Hope that clears things up.


I like how you put into a language that we all can understand. Thanks:)

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

If you're writing for Americans, put the quotation mark after the punctuation mark. If not, put it before the mark. There, simple.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Now, I have a question.

The possessive form of "it." I was taught never to use "it's." However, there is debate over that and I know there are times when it is permissible within the rules. I don't know what they might be, though. Any ideas?

[Bark]

it's = it is

That is always the case, "it is."

For the possessive, it's only "its."

Speaking of "its," I would like to feel some, as long as they're natural.

[neglet]

Now, I have a question.

The possessive form of "it." I was taught never to use "it's." However, there is debate over that and I know there are times when it is permissible within the rules. I don't know what they might be, though. Any ideas?

You were taught correctly. If there's debate about "it's/its," your opponent is an idiot, because it is not permissible within the rules, unless you're ruled by idiocy. The rule, as Bark has already pointed out, is this:

it's = it is; its = belongs to it

Apostrophe abuse is pet peeve number one on my list. Especially people who put apostrophes in plurals, eg, "flower's for sale." :angry :angry :angry :angry

[kah]

OOooooo I hate that.

I am having a hard time with my sig. I keep wanting to make it "If Jakester were..." but I know that's not right. Right?

[Trazalca]

Apostrophe abuse is pet peeve number one on my list. Especially people who put apostrophes in plurals, eg, "flower's for sale." :angry :angry :angry :angry

You just made me think of something I tend to do in my reports at work.

Generally, working with computers, I would refer to one as a PC.

If I mean to make that plural, I habitually would put it in as "PC's".

I do this since, as I work for a telecomm company, the letters PCS
usually refer to cell phone services.

What should I do, O wielder of the mighty paddle, that I may not
incur confusion where I work?

:ohwell:

[Bark]

"PC" isn't proper grammar in the first place. Bend over. Neglet has something to show you. Hint: it involves pain.

[neglet]

OOooooo I hate that.

I am having a hard time with my sig. I keep wanting to make it "If Jakester were..." but I know that's not right. Right?

Your first instinct is right. Any clause after "if" demands the subjunctive form, and "were" is the only subjunctive form of "was." It sounds weird because if you were speaking in the past tense, you would say "Jakester was a pervert," so "Jakester were" sounds wrong. Since you're in the subjunctive tense, however, the correct form is "if Jakester were a pervert."

Of course, this rule is often broken in common speech, so I'm not usually a stickler on it. But since you asked...

Rules on the subjunctive from Bartleby's. (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html)

[neglet]

You just made me think of something I tend to do in my reports at work.

Generally, working with computers, I would refer to one as a PC.

If I mean to make that plural, I habitually would put it in as "PC's".

I do this since, as I work for a telecomm company, the letters PCS
usually refer to cell phone services.

What should I do, O wielder of the mighty paddle, that I may not
incur confusion where I work?

:ohwell:

According to the Chicago Manual of Style (my bible):

So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple letters, hyphenated coinages, and numbers used as nouns (whether spelled out or in numerals) form the plural by adding the (lower case) "s" alone:

Traz works with PCs to run a PCS system.
Algebra involves lots of xs and ys. (note the plural "s" is not italicized)
After a spanking, Southpaw gives me many thank-you-ma'ams.
Jakester promised CODs to everyone who gave him BJs.
Bark likes 69s.

[kah]

Your first instinct is right. Any clause after "if" demands the subjunctive form, and "were" is the only subjunctive form of "was." It sounds weird because if you were speaking in the past tense, you would say "Jakester was a pervert," so "Jakester were" sounds wrong. Since you're in the subjunctive tense, however, the correct form is "if Jakester were a pervert."

Of course, this rule is often broken in common speech, so I'm not usually a stickler on it. But since you asked...

Rules on the subjunctive from Bartleby's. (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html)

I thought it might be "were." Thank you very much.

[Bark]

Bark likes 69s.

I'm not alone. :D

[Kara Milovy]

Case 2, with dialogue, the punctuation is always inside the quotation marks.

"Payment for grammar questions accepted in chocolate," Neglet said.
Traz smiled. "Good thing I brought two bars."

For Case 1, quoted material, I checked with the Chicago Manual of Style on this one, because I've seen it both ways--meaning this is not a matter of grammar, but of style. It actually depends on your nationality. British style is to leave the punctuation outside the quote marks:

He told me I was the best at 'shaking my booty'.

American style is to include the end punctuation within the quotation:

He told me I was the best at "shaking my booty."

Of course, American style has the exception for question marks, for in that case it might change the meaning of the quotation:

What do you mean, I should "shake my booty"?

Hope that clears things up.

Interestingly, the origin of this rule is in typography.

When type was set manually, a period or comma on the outside of quote marks had a high risk of literally falling off. Whereas a question mark was safe.

[Kara Milovy]

it's = it is

That is always the case, "it is."

For the possessive, it's only "its."

Speaking of "its," I would like to feel some, as long as they're natural.
If you can say "it is" instead of "it's" it gets an apostrophe.

If you can say "his" instead of "its", it does not get an apostrophe.

When I held the book I tore its cover.

When I held the book I tore his cover.

While I grant you that there is no evidence for gender among books, the basic grammar of the sentence still makes sense.

But

When I held the book I tore it is cover.

does not make sense.

[Kara Milovy]

Here's a question. Several of my friends and I are debating this, and a few of us are published authors, so we're no slouches.

When you refer to 1899 as "the turn of the century," is it the 19th or the 20th century that is turning?

[KingVoyeur]

Here's a question. Several of my friends and I are debating this, and a few of us are published authors, so we're no slouches.

When you refer to 1899 as "the turn of the century," is it the 19th or the 20th century that is turning?

I'd like to add to this question of years, if we call the 1920's the twenties, the 1930's the thirites and so on, what do we call the first decade from 2000-2010?

[Kaeos]

what do we call the first decade from 2000-2010?

Oh please someone give a good answer on this - this one's been driving me nuts for 6 years now. The only thing that even remotely flows off the tongue is The new millenium. But that's been over commercialized. We need something better.

What did they call 1900 to 1910 back in the 40's?

[SuperSpank]

Wasn't the period between 1900-1910 just the 1900's? It makes sense, no?

[rappites]

How about we call it Pre-Teens? :)

[neglet]

Here's a question. Several of my friends and I are debating this, and a few of us are published authors, so we're no slouches.

When you refer to 1899 as "the turn of the century," is it the 19th or the 20th century that is turning?

I would say that it is the 19th century, just because it has always referred to a specific era (late 1890s to early 1900s) and not to the fact of the century changing. I've never read anything that calls the period of 1790-1810 "the turn of the century," for example, although that century was also changing.

It wouldn't surprise me if in the future we refer to the period of the late 1990s and early 2000s as "the turn of the millenium."

[neglet]

I'd like to add to this question of years, if we call the 1920's the twenties, the 1930's the thirites and so on, what do we call the first decade from 2000-2010?

First of all, did you not read all of this thread? Do we use the apostrophe to make plurals?

No. We do not! <SMACK!>

Anyway, if the 1920s are "the twenties," what do we call the 2000s? I've heard lots of suggestions, like "the nils," "the zeroes," "the aughts" or "double-aughts." My favorite I've heard is the "naughty aughties." :D

I don't think there was a specific term for the same period (1900-1910) in the twentieth century. As Kara noted, it was mostly called "the turn of the century," probably because that historical period wasn't easily divided into decades, like those since the 1920s have been. And I also think that history and nostalgia weren't so much a part of pop culture as they have become since the 1960s and 1970s, so they didn't really need to label the era so specifically.

I think what label this decade gets--if it gets any--will depend on where events lead us, whether they can be easily contained within the decade, or whether they're part of a larger era. So maybe it will be called the zeroes or aughties, or maybe the turn of the millenium or the post-millenium era, or maybe World War III. :ohwell: We can't say for a while, VH-1 specials to the contrary.

[Kara Milovy]

I have taken to referring to the current decade as "the turn of this century" and the 1890s–1910s as "the turn of the last century."

[KingVoyeur]

What the hell is an aught? I've heard it used before, but what the hell is it?

[KingVoyeur]

New grammar subject. When writing the names of movies, books, songs, etc., when do you underline, italicize, and/or put in quotation marks?

[neglet]

That can be a matter of style, depending on the publication. So there's no single "correct" way of doing it, but The Chicago Manual of Style suggests that titles of films and television series be italicized, while episodes of TV series would be within quotes. Similarly, songs are within quotes, while album/CD titles are italicized; short stories are within quotes, while novels and books are italicized.

Underlining is often used in place of italics on manuscripts because it's easier to read. (In fact, underlining text in a manuscript, without any other markup, means "italicize.")

Some examples:

Last night I started reading The Book Thief.
"Lost Israel" is my favorite episode of NYPD Blue.
"You to Thank" is the only song in 3/4 time on Ben Folds' Songs for Silverman.
It's tragic they took a interesting story like "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and turned it into a crap movie like Total Recall.

[Trazalca]

Is the Chicago Manual of Style the same or different from
the Strunk & White Manual of Style?

:dunno:

[neglet]

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (also on my bookshelf) is a concise little guide to the most common errors in grammar and composition. It was co-written by the author of Charlotte's Web and is fewer than 100 pages, including index. I recommend it for any aspiring writer.

The Chicago Manual of Style (I have the 14th edition) is a professional manual put out by the University of Chicago Press. It covers bookmaking (manuscript preparation, production, and printing), but the majority is taken up with issue of style: punctuation, spelling, names and terms, numbers, foreign languages, quotations, illustrations, tables, mathematics in type, abbreviations, bibliographies, etc etc etc. This sucker is 900 pages long, with index. I have a copy because it is default style for many of the publishers for whom I write. Like I said, it's a professional manual, so it's not something you need if you're writing a novel--especially since it costs around $50. Fixing all that picky stuff is your editor's job, and you wouldn't want to put them out of a job, would you? :ohwell:

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

You were taught correctly. If there's debate about "it's/its," your opponent is an idiot, because it is not permissible within the rules, unless you're ruled by idiocy. The rule, as Bark has already pointed out, is this:

it's = it is; its = belongs to it

Apostrophe abuse is pet peeve number one on my list. Especially people who put apostrophes in plurals, eg, "flower's for sale." :angry :angry :angry :angry

"opponent?" What opponent? The rule, as I understand it, is that - it's - is used ONLY to refer to something indefinite, but understood. However, the "debate" I was referring to was how to determine if you are referring to something indefinite but understood. - It's - can mean both "it is" and "it has."

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

What the hell is an aught? I've heard it used before, but what the hell is it?

It is "ought" not "aught." And it means "zero" (in the context you're looking for). So, 1908 would be referred to as "nineteen ought eight," for example.

[neglet]

Sorry, Kirk. "Ought" is the verb meaning "supposed to," as in "I ought to check the dictionary before I debate definitions with Neglet."

My Webster's has the following for "aught":

aught (ot)
n.
1 anything whatever [for aught I know]
2 a zero [< a naught (see naught), by faulty separation into an aught]

adv.
[Archaic] to any degree; at all

Etymology
[ME < OE awiht < a, ever + wiht, a creature, wight1]

I love it when the same word can mean almost opposite things. Or when words sound opposite but mean the same thing (flammable, inflammable). It just makes things more interesting.

[neglet]

PS: If you look at the etymology of "aught," coming from "a naught" turning into "an aught," then my suggestion of "naughty aughties" is a fantastic (if redundant) pun!

[KingVoyeur]

See Kirk, I know what I'm talking about! Does the paddle sting? :D

Anyways, new question (this one comes from my co-worker). Would you say "The happy couple was" or "The happy couple were"? I say was, since couple is singular, right? Or should I bend over and receive my paddle?

[neglet]

Anyways, new question (this one comes from my co-worker). Would you say "The happy couple was" or "The happy couple were"? I say was, since couple is singular, right? Or should I bend over and receive my paddle?

Your reasoning is correct. "Couple" is a singular, so it would be "the happy couple was copulating in the backseat of the Yugo like frenzied weasels." Of course, "the couple were" doesn't sound so bad because if you substituted "they" for "the couple" you would indeed say "they were copulating...."

I've noticed some differences between British and American English in dealing with "singular plural" words, especially with regard to sports teams. Whereas we would say "The Tigers were beating on the Yankees" but "Detroit was beating on the Yankees," I often heard British announcers say something along the lines of "Detroit were winning." It would drive me crazy when watching a British announcer cover Monday Night Football.

[KingVoyeur]

Thanks, I'll inform him.