3 ms·
These 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 qu
by inimino 10y ago
These 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.