Search results for 'tag:Punctuation tag:Numbers' matching tags 'Punctuation' and 'Numbers'

Punctuation: U.S. v.s. British style

Gori — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:33:37 GMT

Dear native speakers (this time, especially, U.S., Canada, and U.K.),

I have long been confronting the problem related to the usage of commas and periods in quotation marks. I know that periods and commas are placed inside quotation marks in U.S. style; but they are not in British style.

Example)
U.S. style) I said, "I cannot do this."
British style) I said, "I cannot do this".

Here are my questions:
1. Is it really true?
2. Do British/Canadian people use double quotation marks in such a case, not single quotation marks? Or does it depend on the writer (which to use, single or double quotation marks)?
3. Is it true that, in American style, commas and periods are placed outside quotation marks if the word enclosed in quotation marks is only one letter or a number?
e.g., This is "1", not "10".
e.g., This is called "X".

Someone, please, please help me clarify these points:

Re: Dear Friends,

richard_s — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:26:57 GMT

The aquatics centre will have a total capacity of 22,500, out of which 17,500 seats will be for the diving and pool competition(,) and the other 5,000 will be in the water polo section of the centre.

Notes:

Capitals - only capitalise the first letter of a sentence of names of things (proper nouns).

to seat - it is unusual to use total and to seat together. Â They don't collocate. We either say a total capacity of...Â orÂ a capacity to seat...

Punctuation - the semicolon use is incorrect there. Â You need a comma. Â Out of which actually begins a (dependent) relative clause which is the object of a preposition. Â Use semicolons when you are separating independent clauses.

the rest - the restÂ means all of the other seats. Â We don't use it with a number because it means all that is left. Â We use the otherÂ with a number to achieve the same meaning.

will be put up for - this seems wrong here though I am not exactly sure of your meaning. Â In this case, forÂ seems more logical.

Re: Correct punctuation with technical numbers and abbreviations

Anonymous — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:29:38 GMT

Thank you. I continued to research the issue and came across similar results. From what I think I understand the "4" and "GB" represent a compound modifier for "RAM" and generally require the hyphen. As for why I have seen MHz or GHz without a hyphen so often is it generally has been used in relation to processors, which generally are discussed as, Intel Xeon E5430 Processor (2.66 GHz, 1333 FSB) with a quad-core. The frequency is not used as a compound modifier. If is was used as, 2.66 GHz Intel Xeon E5430 Processor, then I think the hyphen would be required.

Is that correct reasoning?

Normal 0 false false false

Re: Correct punctuation with technical numbers and abbreviations

Mister Micawber — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:41:41 GMT

.
I doubt you will find a rule laid out for such a volatile field of vocabulary, but traditional punctuation would call for 4-GB RAM, an adjective-noun formation on the model of 12-pound hammer.

Similarly, a careful computer-grammarian would hyphenate: 700-MHz spectrum.
.

Correct punctuation with technical numbers and abbreviations

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:47:45 GMT

I have noticed for years many variations of punctuation when you combine numbers and capacity abbreviations. I read a lot of technical stuff and I do not and I can not find (searching the web) a reference to the correct usage.
Which is correct?

4GB RAM, no space between 4 and G
4 GB RAM, space between 4 and G
4-GB RAM, hyphen between 4 and G

Is there a hard and fast rule?

Now with MHz it seems to be consistent, there is always a space between the number and the MHz. Why?

Re: organize a trip

Mr Wordy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:00:17 GMT

You have problems with spacing around punctuation, and you have spurious double spaces in a number of places. I have corrected these below.

The other changes that I made to the date formats are not because what you had was wrong, but just to make them all consistent.

Dear colleagues,

This year the company is to organize a vacation trip for all employees to Mui Ne Beach, about 200 km ~~away~~ ["away" is not necessarily wrong, but I think the sentence reads better without it] from the city center. Those who would like to join the trip should register with Miss Perry by February 15, 2008.

The trip is scheduled to leave for Mui Ne Beach [comma deleted] on July 15, 2008 and ~~come back~~ return ["come back" is not wrong, but I think "return" is better] to the city on March 5, 2008. [The return date is earlier than the departure date!]

Thank you in advance.

Re: Is this sentence correct? Thank you

Mr Wordy — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:29:59 GMT

SHIBA SAXENA
Mr. Wordy,

Is there any other way to write such sentencesa in a single line.

This is a conversational/informal form of wording that you could write in any of a number of different punctuation styles. For example:

You hired her. You fire her.

You hired her, you fire her.

You hired her; you fire her.

You hired her -- you fire her.

You hired her ... you fire her.

There are as many different variations in the same style as you care to dream up:

You invited them here. You look after them.

You broke the computer. You fix it.

You designed the website. You tell me how it works

Etc.

Re: subordinate clauses?

26TMNTJG2PG — Sat, 24 May 2008 09:01:01 GMT

I think the two number 2's should be correct instead according to one of the functions of commas stated below:-

The comma is often used to separate a dependent clause from the independent clause if the dependent clause comes first.

After I brushed the cat, I lint-rollered my clothes. (optional comma)
I lint-rollered my clothes after I brushed the cat. (no comma)
[FROM ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28punctuation%29]

Re: subordinate clauses?

Jackson6612 — Sat, 24 May 2008 08:57:34 GMT

Anonymous

Why are number 1's correct, whereas number 2's are not? Please note the commas.

First Part:
1. Stealing is illegal, because it is a crime.

2. Stealing is illegal because it is a crime.

Second Part:
1. Fishing is important to us, since it generates a lot of income.

2. Since fishing generates a lot income, it is important to us.

I can understand what thing is baffling you. In the First Part you would be thinking about the use of that comma. I don't think that the second sentence is incorrect. Sometimes what choice of words/punctuation an author uses in certain expressions is completely at his discretion. So both sentences in the First Part are correct. because is used when stating the reason for something. In the following sentence no comma is used in front of because. The President has played a shrewd diplomatic game because from the outset he called for direct talks with the United States...

Now come to the Second Part. since is used to introduce reasons or explanations. since=as. since can also be used at the start of the sentences but only when the sentence begins with the subordinate clause. e.g. Since you are unable to answer, we should ask someone else. In that sentence you cannot use since in front of we because the clause starting with we is the main one. The second sentence is also correct. It's just that it starts with the subordinate clause.

Kind regards,
Jackson

Re: need help from experts

Clive — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:15:38 GMT

Hi,

I had a few questions, or rather need clarification on a few things. âYou can't do thatâ, they shouted from the balcony, âyou can't, you can't.â ( Why is the comma outside the quote and not inside it?) It's a matter of the style you choose to follow. If you search the Forum, you'll find a number of threads that discuss such aspects of punctuation. And have a look here. http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmay96.htm

âEnjoy the viewâ, we called out as they left for the mountaintop. We had wisely decided to wait for them in the/a meadow, halfway up. (the same with this one?)

I make it a point to read the New York Times every day and the New Yorker every week. Only rarely, however, do I get around to Time or Newsweek. (Don't you usualy place a ; whenever there is a "however" being used?) In this case, where there is a preceding adverb, a semi-colon would be totally incorrect.

I believe you may be thinking of a case like this. He loved her; however, he didn't marry her.

But note that the above sentence would much more commonly written as He loved her. However, he didn't marry her.

Best wishes, Clive