punctuation with quotation marks

I've really been struggling with this lately; I understand the ~~rulz~~ guidelines, but often the results just look wrong to me. I sure would appreciate it if someone could 'splain these so they make some logical sense.

Quote:

Put commas and periods within closing quotation marks, except when a parenthetical reference follows the quotation:

He said, "I may forget your name, but I never remember a face."

History is stained with blood spilled in the name of "civilization."

Mullen, criticizing the apparent inaction, writes, "Donahue's policy was to do nothing" (27).

Put colons and semicolons outside closing quotation marks:

Williams described the experiment as "a definitive step forward"; other scientists disagreed.

Benedetto emphasizes three elements of what she calls her "Olympic journey": family support, personal commitment, and great coaching.

so, slightly recasting one of these moves the punctuation:
Williams described the experiment as "a definitive step forward," while other scientists disagreed.

and, this looks better to me:
History is stained with blood spilled in the name of "civilization".

The placement of certain punctuation within the quotes is an American rule; those on the island across the pond put the punctuation outside the quotes when it punctuates the sentence rather than the quote. I don't think that you can find logic in the American rule; I prefer the other way, as do you. From what I've been seeing, I think that the Amercian rule is on it's way out. But don't quote me on that.

I suppose I should qualify that by revealing that I found it at the Purdue University Online Writing Lab [OWL], but like you say Sparteye, it seems to capture the standard American guidelines and I'm sure Michigan State and Ohio State would agree.

oh, and thank you for your support.

count me in, too, t.

that Mullen line looks so blasted wrong to me. it's about the only one I would put inside the parens.

Quote:

those on the island across the pond put the punctuation outside the quotes when it punctuates the sentence rather than the quote.

this is what I usually try to make work.

I'll go with Sparteye's rule, too. My understanding of the origin of the rule is that in the old days periods and commas outside of quotes somehow managed to be in danger of breaking off or something stupid like that. That would explain why colons and semicolons could live safely outside the quotation marks. Certainly if you're writing for a computer instruction book of whatever kind, if you're using quotes to delimit something that has to be input to the computer you'd best not have anything inside the quotes that you don't want input.

Originally Posted By: Sparteye

The placement of certain punctuation within the quotes is an American rule; those on the island across the pond put the punctuation outside the quotes when it punctuates the sentence rather than the quote. I don't think that you can find logic in the American rule; I prefer the other way, as do you. From what I've been seeing, I think that the Amercian rule is on it's [sic] way out. But don't quote me on that.

Hey I just did, oops (quote you that is).

I think your rule is the rule here in Australia (across the other pond) too. Not sure whether you're right about the Brits. Personally I tend to be inconsistent depending on the aesthetics of it, as others have said.

Originally Posted By: The Pook

Originally Posted By: Sparteye

The placement of certain punctuation within the quotes is an American rule; those on the island across the pond put the punctuation outside the quotes when it punctuates the sentence rather than the quote. I don't think that you can find logic in the American rule; I prefer the other way, as do you. From what I've been seeing, I think that the Amercian rule is on it's [sic] way out. But don't quote me on that.

Hey I just did, oops (quote you that is).

I think your rule is the rule here in Australia (across the other pond) too. Not sure whether you're right about the Brits. Personally I tend to be inconsistent depending on the aesthetics of it, as others have said.

What? You sic'd "it's" but not "Amercian"?

Those were proof of a hurried post.

My distinction between the American and Brit rule is from a usage book, and a British friend. The book could be wrong, but I'm too scared of Fi to question her.

I think that the Amercian rule is on it's way out. But don't quote me on that.

Sorry, Sparteye, but I just purchased the latest edition of the Associated Press Stylebook, which is the standard at newspapers, and the inside-the-quotes rule stands.
There are some nice exchanges on the website www.apstylebook.org

Originally Posted By: wow

the inside-the-quotes rule stands.

and it's still "dumb".

Originally Posted By: tsuwm

Originally Posted By: wow

the inside-the-quotes rule stands.

and it's still "dumb".

word.

Originally Posted By: Sparteye

What? You sic'd "it's" but not "Amercian"? $\:\)$ Those were proof of a hurried post.

Mercian was a dialect of Old English. Amercian [stet] was the name for all the OE dialects other than Mercian.

To me if you are quoting someone then anything that is not part of the quote should not be inside the quotation marks. Is it possible to change the meaning of a quote by including the comma or period that wasn't in the quote?

Originally Posted By: Sparteye

Originally Posted By: The Pook

Originally Posted By: Sparteye

The placement of certain punctuation within the quotes is an American rule; those on the island across the pond put the punctuation outside the quotes when it punctuates the sentence rather than the quote. I don't think that you can find logic in the American rule; I prefer the other way, as do you. From what I've been seeing, I think that the Amercian rule is on it's [sic] way out. But don't quote me on that.

Hey I just did, oops (quote you that is).

I think your rule is the rule here in Australia (across the other pond) too. Not sure whether you're right about the Brits. Personally I tend to be inconsistent depending on the aesthetics of it, as others have said.

What? You sic'd "it's" but not "Amercian"? $\:\)$ Those were proof of a hurried post.

hee hee. one hurried post deserves another, I always say!