@Diacanu, you do something that just bugs me and bugs me. You do quotes and commas like this: The correct way to do that is like this: Or like this: Correctly done like this: A quote followed by a comma typically has the comma inside the quotes. For instance, a line of dialogue: "It's not the same," he said, "or at least when the martians do it." Or when using quotes ironically or sarcastically, like this: Our "free" press isn't doing its job. Not like this: Our "free", press isn't doing its job. I swear, this annoys me more than people who don't know the difference between "its" and "it's."
With you on the first instance, but the comma moved inside the quotation marks when it logically belongs outside is just a fad hailing from the necessities of early cheap print. Nowadays, no type will break off just because it's too small to stand on its own. While the comma inside the quotation might as well be grand-fathered in as an option, there is no good reason to make it obligatory.
Rules of grammar and style, dude. Keeping the rules consistent means we can more clearly understand the writer's intent.
Looked it up on a grammar site, and the Brits do it my way. My teachers must have been anglophiles, and not told us. The only reason American does it your way, is stubbornness, and inertia, like how we didn't adopt the metric system. America is wrong, I won't conform.
There are specific times Yeah, nuke that comma after "it's a sin". (<-- that period after the quote is deliberate, though placing it before the end quote also works as "it's a sin" is a full statement) Or like this: Correctly done like this: [/quote]Nuke that comma outright. It isn't needed. Irregardless... Here, an example that could go either way: While he liked to rag on "military intelligence", he was himself rather dim. While he liked to rag on "military intelligence," he was himself rather dim.
Yeah, but without the commas, it's like a dick without a condom. It may feel freeing, but now the quote sauce is leaking all over the sentence.
