<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results for 'tag:Exclamation marks tag:Abbreviations' matching tags 'Exclamation marks' and 'Abbreviations'</title><link>http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aExclamation+marks+tag%3aAbbreviations</link><description>Search results for 'tag:Exclamation marks tag:Abbreviations' matching tags 'Exclamation marks' and 'Abbreviations'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CSMOD (Build: 3256.36449)</generator><item><title>Re: Correct Punctuation within Parentheses</title><link>http://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectPunctuationWithinParentheses/2/vrxjr/Post.htm#338283</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:57:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:338283</guid><dc:creator>Shreksbro</dc:creator><description>I have to disagree with matthewg - both of those examples look terrible, and both actually rely on the capitalization of 'Recent' to indicate a new sentence. My eye actually sees a period after 'evironment' and before the parenthesis (environment.) as indicating an abbreviation!&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;br&gt;People usually read at a fast pace (especially in today's business environment). Recent surveys have confirmed this.
&lt;br&gt;People usually read at a fast pace (especially in today's business environment!). Recent surveys have confirmed this.&lt;/i&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;both look much better to me. I agree that the period after the exclamation-and-parentheses is a little unattractive, but it's hardly a common occurrence and it follows the rules that would otherwise apply so it doesn't really inconvenience the reader. If the parentheses weren't at the end of the sentence, then it would look something like this:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;People usually read at a fast pace (especially in today's business environment!) and with little accuracy. Recent surveys have confirmed this.&lt;/i&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The sentence would still justify the same amount of punctuation. What matthewg is proposing is essentially some kind of alteration to the rules due to some missing text. Including the sentence punctuation within the parentheses defies the established rules of grammar and creates a speed-bump in the flow.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I guess an issue worth raising though, is whether it is really correct
to use any punctuation in parentheses anyway. If the comment is
important enough to warrant an exclamation mark (and especially a
question mark?) then perhaps the comment should be allowed to exist on
the page without being confined to parentheses.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Also consider this example:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;To describe times between midnight and midday we use the term 'ante meridiem' (a.m.). Between midday and midnight we use 'post meridiem' (p.m.). Both of these terms are Latin.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;If we used matthewg's system it would read &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;To describe times between midnight and midday we use the latin
phrase 'ante meridiem' (a.m.) Between midday and midnight we use 'post
meridiem' (p.m.) Both of these terms are Latin.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/i&gt;Again, this tries to 'double up' the function of a single punctuation mark, and relies entirely on the capitalization to indicate the new sentences, which is simply not proper.</description></item></channel></rss>