I haven't seen any specific treatment of how to punctuate the following under Oxford style rules:
The list included the item "string, cord, etc." but there was no mention of rope.
One punctuation rule says a clause starting with "but" should usually be preceded by a comma.
A general rule is that if more than one punctuation mark seems to be needed on either side of a quotation mark, you use only one, choosing to omit the one that seems less important. That precludes writing
* The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.', but there was no mention of rope.
Another rule says a full stop ending a quoted string should be replaced by a comma if the ending quotation mark doesn't end the including sentence.
Based on those rules, the punctuation would be
The list included the item 'string, cord, etc,' but there was no mention of rope.
But the abbreviation seems to cry out for its full stop to be kept, which would result in
The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.' but there was no mention of rope.
That violates the rule that a full stop that appears to end the overall sentence shouldn't appear before the actual end.

All things considered, including a failure so far to find specific treatment of the question in the Oxford Style Manual , I think I would choose to write
The list included the item 'string, cord, etc,' but there was no mention of rope.
1 2 3
I haven't seen any specific treatment of how to punctuate the following under Oxford style rules: The list included the ... I would choose to write The list included the item 'string, cord, etc,' but there was no mention of rope.

But the full stop at the end of "etc." is there not as a syntactic stop but as simple ellision marker. This is clearly so because we if it were a bona fide syntactic full stop we'd write

I quickly showered, shaved, etc. and ran for the bus.

as
* I quickly showered, shaved, etc. And ran for the bus.

This means that since that "." in "etc." is not proper punctuation in quoted material, but more a character, it should like all the other characters in the original be kept and not treated as punctuation at all:
The list included the term "string, cord, etc.", but there was no mention of rope.
And that assuming that the alleged rule about a comma before a "but" clause must be respected is exactly how I (and most British editors/writers, I'd expect) would handle it.
**
Ross Howard
But the full stop at the end of "etc." is there not as a syntactic stop but as simple ellision marker.

But if a sentence ends with "etc.", there is normally only one full point, doing double duty, so it's not as simple as that.

David
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I haven't seen any specific treatment of how to punctuate the following under Oxford style rules: The list included the ... I would choose to write The list included the item 'string, cord, etc,' but there was no mention of rope.

Write what you think will best convey the idea to the target readership audience forget rules. As I have stated earlier:

*

English is Munglish

*
Yes, Engl . . . Munglish depends more on usage than rules.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Bob and others, playing with an abbreviation at the end of a quote, looked at an example every which way but the one that's standard in the United States:

The list included the item "string, cord, etc.,"
but there was no mention of rope.
But the full stop at the end of "etc." is there not as a syntactic stop but as simple ellision marker.

But if a sentence ends with "etc.", there is normally only one full point, doing double duty, so it's not as simple as that.

That's an acknowledged exception to the general rule, perhaps intended to avoid confusion with ellipses and the like. My invariable practice when following "etc." with a comma is to retain the dot (I don't think of it as a true "period"). I would regard omission of the dot with a comma following as an error.

Bob Lieblich
Human data point
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Bob and others, playing with an abbreviation at the end of a quote, looked at an example every which way but the one that's standard in the United States: The list included the item "string, cord, etc.," but there was no mention of rope.

I tried to make it clear that I was discussing the British system that is described in Oxford University Press publications.
Since I try to follow British punctuation style to the extent that I understand it, I have only slight interest in American style.
A general rule is that if more than one punctuation mark seems to be needed on either side of a ... important. That precludes writing * The list included the item 'string, cord, etc.', but there was no mention of rope.

My gut feeling (I have no references on British punctuation) is that it's this star that's wrong. The dot that concludes an abbreviation like "etc." doesn't count as a punctuation mark for rules of the sort you quote above. (The exception, when such an abbreviation ends a sentence, has already be mentioned.) My evidence for this is that, were the quotation marks absent, the sentence would certainly be punctuated
The list mentioned string, cord, etc., but there was no mention of rope.
If a comma can be placed immediately after "etc." without omitting the period, it can be done with an intervening quotation mark.

A slighly more interesting question, to my mind: Which is correct?

The list mentioned "string, cord, etc."
or
The list mentioned "string, cord, etc.".
?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
[email protected] &skt:
Which is correct? The list mentioned "string, cord, etc." or The list mentioned "string, cord, etc.".

In the United States, the first one. Why is the answer in doubt?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more