Quotation marks.

[2ndchance]

Okay, I have a question; some may think a silly one.

Which of these is correct?

Joe Blogs blinked his eyes and said, ‘bla, bla.’

Joe Blogs blinked his eyes and said, ‘Bla, bla.’

Joe blogs blinked his eyes and thought, ‘bla, bla.’

Joe blogs blinked his eyes and thought, ‘Bla, bla.’

Or are they all right, and all that is required to make it correct is consistency.

It strikes me; it is a matter of choice, because I can’t find a definitive answer, just opinions.

Steve

 

[The Ace]

Inverted commas show direct speech or the names of things.

There should always be a comma before and the first letter after opening is always capitalised. Although there should be a comma immediately before closure, this can be changed for a question mark, full stop or exclamation as required.

The rules state that double inverted commas should be used, with singles only for parenthesis but this is often ignored as long as the writer is consistent (always open and close with one or the other, never mix them.

He said that he was going home. (No direct speech, no inverted commas.)

He said, "I'm going home." (Reporting exactly what was said)

He asked if I was ready.

"Are you ready ?" He asked.

At 3pm, we boarded the, "Earnest." She was no longer manned. (The name of the vessel.)

 

[iansales]

At 3pm, we boarded the, "Earnest." She was no longer manned. (The name of the vessel.)

I think that should be:

At 3pm, we boarded the, "Earnest". She was no longer manned. (The name of the vessel.)

It's only in the US that the full stop is tucked inside the quotation marks. In the UK, we leave it outside in such cases.

 

[Ursa major]

"Are you ready ?" He asked.

I think that this ought to be:

"Are you ready?" he asked.

 

[2ndchance]

Now I am confused, because you, Ursa, have highlighted my other issue, when do we use capital after said quotation marks? Hmmm.

And then there is a full-stop vs. a comma.

She sighed, smiled, and said. 'Hello,' then glanced away, thinking, 'do I know him?'

That's how I assumed it to be, perhaps incorrectly...

Steve

 

[The Ace]

Your example is correct, when the same person speaks twice with an interjection, the first would end with a comma, unless it were a question.


A question mark works the same way as a full stop, Ursa, there has to be a capital after it.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

She sighed, smiled, and said. 'Hello,' then glanced away, thinking, 'do I know him?'

No, that should be:

She sighed, smiled, and said, " Hello," then glanced away, thinking: Do I know him?

or depending on whether you want to italicize internal monologue:

She sighed, smiled, and said, "Hello," then glanced away, thinking, Do I know him?

Although I would probably divide it into two sentences. She sighed, smiled, and said, "Hello." Then she glanced away, thinking, Do I know him?

I don't know about the UK, but (unlike the comma and the period) the question mark goes outside the quotation marks, unless the question mark is part of the thing quoted.

Also:

At 3pm, we boarded the "Earnest."

If the comma before "Earnest" is really the way you do it in the UK ... what is the reasoning behind that?

But, Steve, instead of asking us and getting nine different answers, look inside some published works of fiction (preferably those written in the same country where you are going to submit your manuscript, so as not to get all caught up in the UK/US thing), note every instance of dialogue and how it is done, and keep on doing it until you've absorbed the right way to do these things so thoroughly you don't have to think about it. Frankly, that's what most writers do.

 

[The Judge]

I don't know about the UK, but (unlike the comma and the period) the question mark goes outside the quotation marks, unless the question marks is part of the think quoted.

Same here, Teresa - though here we put all the punctuation (ie commas and full stops) outside the quotation marks unless it's part of the quote, which mostly it is, of course, in ordinary direct speech -- the inside/outside thing is usually only relevant if quoting someone else. Er... not sure if that makes sense now...

Also:

At 3pm, we boarded the "Earnest."

If the comma before "Earnest" is really the way you do it in the UK ... what is the reasoning behind that?

It isn't, Teresa -- there shouldn't be a comma there at all.

Ace -- I'm afraid you're wrong in your example, as Ursa correctly pointed out. The 'he said' must take a lower case 'h' after a question-mark (or an exclamation mark) which is inside quotes. It isn't the same as a full stop since it isn't ending the sentence, as shown by the very fact it is 'he said'. After all one wouldn't (shouldn't) say " 'He is ready.' He said."

Steve -- Teresa is right as to reading as much as you can, even though it will be difficult with your dyslexia. In the meantime, go back through The Toolbox which Peter set up at the top of Aspiring Writers -- there's quite a bit there on punctuation which should help you.

J

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Steve,

If I were you, I'd start with the bones of it. Most punctuation can be used in a number of different ways, but if you can get the basics straight, you will be a long way down the road.

Teresa is bang on. You are British and you are writing a book about British people set in Britain. You should therefore read published works by modern British authors to see how they do it. The American system is different to ours in a number of ways - not wrong, just different - and you don't want to get confused.

You could do far worse than dig out one of the Flashman series. Aside from being cracking good reads, they are masterfully written.

A few basic pointers to get you started.

Speech marks (" ") are used for dialogue. They notify direct speech - a word for word quote of what a character is saying.

Inverted commas (aka quotation marks) (' ') are used to denote names or titles of things. An example - we know (or, at least, we should know if we suffer the twin misfortunes of being British and male) that the 'Mallard' refers to a steam train and not a breed of duck. This is for two reasons - firstly, we have capitalised the word, which denotes that it is a proper noun - a name of something. Secondly, we have put it in inverted commas, which also denotes that it is a name for something.

You don't have to to both. You can say:-

The Mallard steamed majestically through Newark.

or

The 'Mallard' steamed majestically through Newark

What you can't do is keep the inverted commas but drop the capitals. The capitals trump the inverted commas, so the following would be wrong:-

The 'mallard' steamed majestically through Newark.

The following is also wrong, unless you are talking about a particularly hot duck:-

The mallard steamed majestically through Newark

To take things a little further:-

"Sink me! Is that a first edition of Peter Graham's seminal 'Guide to the Sheepfolds and Shielings of Westmorland'?" exclaimed Steve.

If you look at the very end of the sentence, you will see no fewer than three bits of punctuation.

To work out where it all goes, imagine that you are zooming out from the sentence with a camera, seeing more of it the further you draw back.

The inverted commas are wrapped round the title of something - the name of the book. So they come first.

Zoom out and you will see that the person speaking is asking a question. So the question mark comes next.

Zoom out further and you will see that what Steve is asking is all direct speech - so the whole lot has to be wrapped in speech marks too.

Now, the question of whether the "exclaimed" should have a capital E depends on what precedes it. I think that Judge has it right.

In this sentence, the question mark is within the speech marks and so denotes the question that Steve is asking and not the end of the whole sentence. So the "exclaimed" is not capitalised.

However, if the question mark did denote the end of the sentence, then Ace is right and whatever comes next would have to be capitalised.

Example:-

"Is it really the case that anyone has ever read Peter Graham's turgid book on sheepfolds?" asked Judge.

(question mark before speech marks, so not denoting the end of the sentence).

Is it really the case that anyone has ever read Peter Graham's turgid book on sheepfolds? The Judge, at least, rather doubted it.

(question mark denotiong end of sentence)

Regards,

Peter

PS: Signed copies of the 'Guide to the Sheepfolds and Shielings of Westmorland' available from the lounge bar of the Lamb and Flag. Price: one pint.

 

[2ndchance]

Thank you all...

D’you know guys, the UK/US thesis has confused me, and I have come away from what was fundamentally correct. I have done this by way of threads, UK novels with variations, UK, how-to books, also with variations, and now find myself in a confused world of indecision. Seriously, I wasn’t far off in my head in the first place.

The only thing I am now not sure about is the (“ “) vs. (‘ ‘) for speech vs. Named. Other than that, I am going with...

John suggested. ‘You know guys, I think we can beat this,’ thinking, can we?

‘You sure guv’?’ Steve asked, from the back of the class, in his normal inert way.

Steve

 

[Interference]

Nothing difinitive about this answer and with so many opinions it's hard to know whether this will be of any help or use to you at all, but .....

Joe Blogs blinked his eyes and said, ‘Bla, bla.’ - is correct.

Joe blogs blinked his eyes and thought, ‘bla, bla.’ - is (I believe) also correct, assuming 'blogs' was a typo.

At 3pm, we boarded the, "Earnest". She was no longer manned. - is also correct (there is no full stop/period in the actual name of the vessel, any more than you're called "Steve.", so it remains outside the quotes.)

She sighed, smiled, and said. 'Hello,' then glanced away, thinking, do I know him? - would be my instinct.

"Do I know you?" she asked. - is correct.

"I do know you!" she said. - is also correct.

"I do know you!" she said, "You're the man who shot my Swiss Cheese full of holes." - is correct.

"I do know you," she said, "you're the man who ..." - would be correct but

"I do know you," she said. "You're the man who ..." - would be better.

‘You sure, guv’?’ Steve asked, from the back of the class, in his normal inert way. - The reds seem unnecessary to me ('guv' is not an abbreviation of 'governor', but a corruption and therefore stands as-is), and you forgot the blue --- and, yes. I'm sure



As far as I can gather the "/' issue is one of geography. I gather that in the UK we use ' for dialogue and " for non-dialogue, while in the US 'tis t'other way about. Which is odd since at school we were taught to use " for speech, but that's just the exception that proves (or 'tests', to apply the original meaning of the word) the rule. I think someone has mentioned here before that either is acceptable in a manuscript submission as long as you stick with one style throughout the document.

Happily, it seems that italics are growing more commonly acceptable for both names of things and thoughts outside dialogue.

 

[Peter Graham]

The only thing I am now not sure about is the (“ “) vs. (‘ ‘) for speech vs. Named. Other than that, I am going with...

Let us rent the fogs asunder...

John suggested. ‘You know guys, I think we can beat this,’ thinking, can we?

You don't need the full stop after "suggested", because what John suggested is all part of the same sentence. What John then says is direct speech - a word for word quote - so it needs to be in speech marks.

John's internalised thoughts can be expressed as you suggest, but could also be wrapped in speech marks, as it is stilll a direct word for word quote of what he was thinking.

As a stylistic thing. It's better to have "xxxxx" said John, rather than John said "xxxx".

So we can have:-

"You know, guys, I think we can beat this" suggested John, although he was really thinking can we?

"You sure, guv'?" asked Steve, from the back of the class, in his usual inept way.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Ursa major]

And to think we haven't yet got round to people's preferences on:

"I'm home," said John.

versus

"I'm home," John said.

(or even whether consistency of use on this point is required).

 

[Interference]

Says you

 

[Culhwch]

I love threads like this. Fifteen different people saying fifteen different things are correct.... and, usually, they are correct. What a language we have!

My only quibble is with this:

At 3pm, we boarded the, "Earnest". She was no longer manned.

Or, indeed, this:

The 'Mallard' steamed majestically through Newark.

In both of these examples, I'd use italics to denote the name of a vessel (or train).

At three, we boarded the Earnest. She was no longer manned.

Not saying it's right, necessarily, nor wrong. Just how I do it, and something I've picked up from a lot of published work, so I'm not the only one.

(You'll also note I'm against numerals in prose...)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

In both of these examples, I'd use italics to denote the name of a vessel (or train).

You're right. I was going along with the way people were doing it here (concentrating too much on that comma I didn't like), but in a manuscript I was intending to send in for publication, I would underline Earnest to indicate there would be italics (Earnest) in the actual book.

And for the titles of books and stories, the correct usage would be italics for a book title, and quotations marks for the name of a short story or magazine article -- or, I suppose, a poem. I have never known what to do with the title of a trilogy or other series.

 

[j d worthington]

And for the titles of books and stories, the correct usage would be italics for a book title, and quotations marks for the name of a short story or magazine article -- or, I suppose, a poem. I have never known what to do with the title of a trilogy or other series.

It depends, with the poem. General usage is, for shorter poems, double quotation marks ("), for longer poems (several hundred lines in length), italics. As for the point about trilogies, tetralogies, and the like... generally, I have seen such things italicized; if the overall title was followed by reference to a specific book in the set, then a colon was added between the two. Occasionally, I will see one in bold face and the other in italic as well. As for something like The Lord of the Rings, which is a single novel in several volumes, that seems to follow the same rule in most cases....

(On the forums, on the other hand, I personally tend to use boldface for novels, collections, plays, and longer poems, to particularly set them aside from surrounding type as an aid to anyone interested in simply scanning for suggested titles....)

 

[Peter Graham]

In both of these examples, I'd use italics to denote the name of a vessel (or train).

At three, we boarded the Earnest. She was no longer manned.

Not saying it's right, necessarily, nor wrong. Just how I do it, and something

That's a perfectly valid way of doing it, but using quotation marks is also fine - two ways to skin the same cat.

As Teresa says, some people like to use italics to denote the name of a major work or compendium - The Complete Poems of Lord Byron, but then use single quotation marks to denote a part of that work -

Peter picked up his copy of The Complete Poems of Lord Byron and flicked through 'Don Juan'.

A potential problem arises if, for example, you wanted to talk about Peter picking up a copy of the complete works of Blake, which contained all of the Songs of Innocence and Experience, one of which is called 'Tiger Tiger'. At what point do you flip from italics to quotation marks? Or, worse still, Blake has a section in a larger book - The Oxford Companion to Drug-Addled Poets and Mentalist Social Radicals of the 17th and 18th Century, which then contains the Songs and the individual poems. You then end up with:-

Peter picked up his copy of The Oxford Companion to Drug-Addled Poets and Mentalist Social Radicals of the 17th and 18th Century and turned to the section entitled 'The Abridged Works of William Blake' (or The Abridged Works of William Blake). Pausing only to sip his Absinthe, Peter flicked through to the 'Songs of Innocence and Experience' (or the Songs of Innocence and Experience) and re-read 'Tiger Tiger'.

Personally, I don't think it matters. The purpose of italicizing or of using those single quotation marks is simply to make it clear that you are referencing the full name or title of the thing you are talking about - you wouldn't write Lord Byron's poems if that was not the proper title of the work.

I tend to use italics to denote emphasis in dialogue, but again that is just personal preference. The key is to make sure that what you are saying is clear and consistent.

Regards,

Peter

 

[fkatona]

So I'm currently reading Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad (published in 1900; I like to keep myself grounded in classic literature). This is my third attempt at it - and having gotten farther than any previous attempt, I have confidence I will be done before the new year. Though it has certainly become a lesson in quotations.

The narrator, a sea captain named Marlowe, tells the story - so 99% of the book is dialogue from the narrator, in double quotes "". He'll often describe conversations he's had with other people, and that dialogue is in single quotes ''. Then, those characters will tell stories about other people they ran into, and that dialogue will be back in double quotes "". There was even one point where the dialogue was inside dialogue inside dialogue inside the dialogue of the narrator, thusly back to the single quotes again ''. Believe me, this has been an adventure in learning to follow quotations or even figuring out who is speaking.

Fortunately, the names of the ships are in italics. But the 'named terms' are in single quotes, which adds to the confusion only slightly.