(they say Logical Punctuation, I say TRAVESTY.
Truer words have never been spoken. Though they have no doubt been punctuated improperly when quoted.
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
(they say Logical Punctuation, I say TRAVESTY.
Truer words have never been spoken. Though they have no doubt been punctuated improperly when quoted.
I knew I could count on you, Teppy!
TO BE WRONG.
If loving punctuation within quotation marks is wrong, I don't want to be right.
You can have some punctuation within quotation marks. You just can't have it all. Otherwise, what does a quote even mean? That's not what they said, why is it in quote marks? It's a mockery of verbatimness.
I am particularly appalled by the notion that usage on the Web could be used as the foundation of any grammar argument. That's a slippery slope to having "r" be an acceptable spelling for the third-person plural of to be.
If loving punctuation within quotation marks is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Yes, well it's clear that you don't want to be right.
I don't see why it's a travesty. It's just what people are used to. The British way always made more sense to me.
That's a slippery slope to having "r" be an acceptable spelling for the third-person plural of to be.
It's Prince's fault.
Seriously, though--spoken usage can count in the evolution of language, or written in another media, just not on the internet?
Usage affects the evolving meaning of words, but has much less effect on grammar and punctuation.