|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quotation mark article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9|
|WikiProject Typography||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
In Quotation mark it is stated, “adding a quarter-em space (U+2005 Four-Per-Em Space) within the quotes”.
Yet over on Non-breaking space it states, “U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE. It is also required for big punctuation in French (before " ; ? ! » › " and after " « ‹ "; today often also before " : ")”
So which is it?
- In the era of metal type they usually employed the thin space (1/5 or 1/6 em). In modern times this is most often approximated by a single space. Note, in metal type there were no single notion of the "space", spaces between words, sentences and punctuation marks were variable. But there is a problem with word wrapping, when one guillemet may easily end up hanging alone on the next or the previous line. To treat this the no-break space (U+00A0) is used. Using the four-per-em space (U+2005) is pointless, first, because it is wrappable, second, because the space (U+0020) is 1/4 em in most fonts, so U+0020, U+00A0, U+2005 are often identical in width. Using U+202F may have some justification, if one wants discriminate spaces between words and between words and punctuation marks, or to fine-tune spacing. The Chicago Manual of Style suggests the thin no-breaking space for French punctuation, but allows the normal non-breaking space as well. See also the note here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Additionally, note that CMOS also “allows” NBSP (U+00A0) as a group separator in numbers for locales that use spaces to group digits, but that is not doing any good typography given NBSP is justifying (except in word processors \setminus Word 2013), while a non-justifying non-breakable space may be either U+2007 FIGURE SPACE or U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE; Unicode’s UAX#14 recommends U+2007 FIGURE SPACE for use in numbers, but that has never been in CLDR, that started specifying U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE as a group separator. Prompted and urged to argue about their messing around with NBSP, CMOS ed committee looks sort of scared into silence. A well-known and authoritative French style guide is ruling that guillemets should have NBSP with them, but actually is using NNBSP (U+202F) with guillemets, on the basis of what is seen in said style guide. Still it actually rules and uses NBSP with colon [off-topic here, but noted for clarification], while mainstream French graphic industry is reported to use NNBSP everywhere a space is required with a punctuation mark.
- Why U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE? Because when setting up the Standard, Unicode didn’t specify U+2008 PUNCTUATION SPACE as non-breakable, unlike what was done for U+2007 FIGURE SPACE, despite both spaces were used in—and have been encoded for—old-style numeric table typesetting, along with U+2012 ‒ FIGURE DASH (and monospace digits). That didn’t bother anybody but those doing French typography, that stayed unfeasible outside DTP software (or hot metal). [Hence I suspect that this outcome was the reason why that encoding “error” happened.] Fortunately, Mongolian does need a narrow non-breaking space, too, so this was finally added to Unicode seven years late. The French industry thankfully started using U+202F NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE, too. Actually that is the main use case of NNBSP, according to The Unicode Standard.
- Sorry to be late replying. -- Hnvnc (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
How about Latin?
I'd like to know how quotes are made in Latin, but I could not find the information in the article. Do I write it as «Væ Victis!» or “Væ Victis!”? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Latin did not use quotation marks, but language elements like "inquit" ("he or she said"). -- Hnvnc (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
In many places, the article speaks of the direction that quotation marks are "pointing", usually including the word itself in quotation marks. The meaning is clear enough in connection with single angular quotation marks, ‹ and ›, and with Guillemets, « and ». As applied to curved quotation marks, however, the usage is, quite consistently, the opposite of what one would expect:
- In Sweden (and Finland), both marks "pointed" to the right but both were at the top level (”…”), neither at the bottom.
Perhaps there is some sense in which the ” symbol points to the right, but it's not at all obvious; one would think that, if the tail is curved, the direction toward which it curves is the direction that the symbol points. Should we interchange "left" and "right" as applied to curved quotation marks and use some term other than "pointing"? If so, what would be a good choice? Peter Brown (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. That has been fixed in the article, stating that it’s the convexity that is considered pointing, not the tail, consistently with what is observed with angle quotation marks : “with the convexity pointing outward.”
- Beside that, the scare quotes around “pointing” have been removed as pointless. -- Hnvnc (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been spending some time understanding the use of quotation marks in Dutch, and believe that the primary and alternative use should be reversed: Unicode U+201C (“) as the primary opening symbol, Unicode U+201E („) as the alternative, traditional closing symbol.
The reference used for justifying the use of the low quotation mark (Burrough-Boenisch, Joy (2004). Righting English That's Gone Dutch. Voorburg: Kemper Conseil. pp. 41–46.) simply makes reference to the way it is done in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper and gives no specific statement about it being the primary or correct symbol. One must bear in mind that this book is instructing correct usage in English and simply takes example from the NRC Handelsblad to explain how symbols are used in American and British spelling.
This is only one of two newspapers (NRC Handelsblad and Trouw) that still use the traditional low quotation marks. Indeed there is some degree of inconsistency on NRC's part even as their style book, the NRCCode, makes no specific reference to the use of the low quotation mark; throughout the document high quotation marks are used with only one occurrence of actual double commas (as opposed to the Unicode U+201E „-symbol).
The reference in fact acknowledges the low quotation mark as to be traditional, pointing out that American style is the adopted modern standard, for instance in word processing. — Stimpy talk 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes and references
- Microsoft Community: Non-breakable space justification in Word 2016
- Unicode Standard Annex #14: Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm, version Unicode 11.0.0
- Common Locale Data Repository, CLDR 34 Release Note
- Undisclosed reference.
- Discussions on the Unicode public mail list.
- [https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode11.0.0/ch06.pdf#G1834 The Unicode Standard, Version 11.0 - Core Specification. Chapter 6: Writing Systems and Punctuation. §6.2 General Punctuation. Space Characters
Indic quotation mark direction
At Quotation mark#History the fourth 'graph says
while Indic scripts preferred the inward-pointing 99-66 convention (”…“)., citing this blog. The problem (aside from it being a blog) is that it is self-inconsistent:
8. उद्धरण चिन्ह (” “) (Quotation Mark) ... Example: a. महात्मा गाँधी ने कहा ” सत्य ही ईश्वर है|” (Mahatma Gandhi said “Truth is God” )
While it's understandable that the Latin-script in the example has the 66–99 orientation, both of the quotes surrounding the Devanagari-script are the "99" type. Further, I can't find any other evidence that is not a copy (or perhaps the source of) this blog. This 1990 paper on Marathi language (using Devanagari script) punctuation shows "66–99" orientation:
- KELKAR, ASHOK R. "PUNCTUATION AND OTHER MARKS IN MARATHI WRITING : A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS." Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 50 (1990): 263-75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42931389. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)