7 ms·
But... quote marks are grammatically correct. They're the only way to mention words and phrases you're not actually using them. Yes, the things we write are su
by cwp 10y ago
But... quote marks are grammatically correct. They're the only way to mention words and phrases you're not actually using them.
Yes, the things we write are subject to misinterpretation, particularly when stripped of the their context. But asking people to avoid correct use of punctuation isn't going to make that less likely. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- dang 10y agoIt looks like what I posted might not have been clear. I mean: please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not really quoting them. In particular, please don't do that thing where people sarcastically put words in someone's mouth and then add quotation marks around those words to amplify the rhetorical effect. Uses of quotation marks for quoting someone, or for doing something that doesn't look like quoting someone (e.g. "self-referentially") are fine.
- true_religion 10y agoThis is how fictional dialogue is commonly written in English lit. I do not see what the original poster could be doing wrong by following commonly accepted grammar. Perhaps this is just hitting a pet peeve of yours.
- tptacek 10y agoAgain, the quotation marks are fine, as long as you write carefully enough make it entirely clear that you're not quoting somebody on the thread. And if it's a pet peeve of his, it's one he inherited from the site --- it's a longstanding thing here.
- dang 10y agoIn fictional dialogue the quotes are there to show what a character said, not what they didn't say—that would be confusing! As it is here.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- quickConclusion 10y agoInteresting, i can see where the risk of confusion is. But wondering how it could have been written for similar effect... " For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom. " Feels a bit confusing. Is there a better way?
- inimino 10y agoPart of the confusion arises from use of the word "literally" in literally the opposite of its sense.
- dang 10y agoActually you're making me think that I picked a bad example to plant a flag on. The general point, about not using quotation marks as a rhetorical device or snark weapon, is a good one: it really does subtly degrade online discourse. But the example doesn't show that as clearly as it might, and the commenter was being a good sport and didn't do anything wrong. Sorry!
- grzm 10y agoThis type of explanation and review is a great example of why I appreciate the manner and spirit of moderation on HN.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- inimino 10y agoThese quote marks were not semantically correct. It is not a point of grammar. The comment literally reads: > the psychologist's advice is literally "[not a quote]" When you put something in the form of a quotation, the accepted meaning is that it is a quotation. In this case it is, literally, not something the psychologist actually advised.
- cwp 10y agoNot at all. When you put some words inside quotes, you're saying you want to talk about those words, without using them yourself. I can say, for example, that I've never heard anyone claim, "The sun is made of purple gumdrops," because that would be ridiculous. I know that the sun is actually made of hot gases, and you know that I know that. The problem with SerLava's comment was that it put words in the author's mouth, not his punctuation.
- inimino 10y agoThat is why I said "in the form of a quotation" which includes mentioning the psychologist directly before introducing the quote. Roughly, the form of a quotation is an attribution, followed (or preceded) by a direct quotation enclosed in quotation marks, or by an indirect quotation without quotation marks. The problem was the potential impression of putting words in the author's mouth, and punctuation was part of what created that impression. In your example there is actually no need for the quotation marks, although they do not create any ambiguity because you didn't attribute the words to anyone in particular. It seems like you mostly agree with me, but you have a funny way of showing it.