
Why do periods and commas go inside quotation marks in MLA style? - tosh
https://style.mla.org/punctuation-and-quotation-marks/
======
drallison
Because that is what the style guide requires. To their credit the MLA guide
endorses the Oxford comma.

------
eesmith
> In other words, in the predigital era, when fonts were fixed-width, setting
> a period or comma outside the quotation marks would have created an
> unsightly gap:

That ... doesn't make sense. Most fonts were (and are) proportional, even in
the predigital era.

Simple example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baskerville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baskerville)
from the 1750s.

Or, Linotype from the late 1800s, used proportional fonts. (Quick search
brought me to
[https://www.circuitousroot.com/artifice/letters/press/compli...](https://www.circuitousroot.com/artifice/letters/press/compline/history/linofaq/index.html)
"The width of each channel in a Linotype magazine is fixed (widths vary from
channel to channel; the width of a channel expected to carry 'W' is greater
than that of one expected to carry 'l').")

~~~
brudgers
The typographic convention guided ordinary people. Ordinary people used
typewriters. Typewriters have fixed width fonts. I suspect it helps with
rivers in printing too, but that's just speculation.

~~~
eesmith
Well, "Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations" aren't "ordinary
people", but I take your point - it's not designed for typesetters.

That said, the statement "in the predigital era, when fonts were fixed-width"
is horribly inaccurate. Following your recommendation, that should start "in
the typewriter era...".

That said, weren't typeset books in the US in before the widespread use of
typewriters (in the late 1800s) also set with the same quotation rules as
described here?

If so, then it's not a typewriter-specific reason. And not a monospace font
reason.

If not, then why did typesetters change their conventions to reflect the use
of typewriters for the initial manuscript?

~~~
eesmith
As a concrete example, Moby-Dick was published in 1851. A quick look shows
these examples of periods and commas (and question marks) on page 9 at
[https://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale01melv/page/9](https://archive.org/details/mobydickorwhale01melv/page/9)
.

> But "The Crossed Harpoons,", and "The Swordfish?" \- this, then, must be the
> sign of "The Trap."

Page 10 has:

> "In judging of that tempestuous wind called Euroclydon," says an old writer
> - of whose works I possess the only extant copy - "it maketh a marvelous
> [...] Death is the only glazier."

Wikipedia's "Typewriter" entry claims "The first commercial typewriters were
introduced in 1874, but did not become common in offices until after the
mid-1880s" so it's not possible that Melville used a typewriter-oriented style
guide.

It's also set in a proportional font, not a fixed-width font.

Which means that the practice of putting punctuation before double quotes has
little or nothing to do with typewriters and fixed-width fonts.

~~~
brudgers
Before typewriters there was little need for style guides. Or rather there was
little need for style guides addressing submissions for publication. Or rather
there was little need for style guides addressing submissions for publication
by persons unfamiliar with typographical practices.

The MLA style guide is the subject of the article. It’s rationale for the
convention is consistent with its rationale for existence.

~~~
eesmith
Sure, I understand that.

But that answer is also tautological, as the answer to "Why do periods and
commas go inside quotation marks in MLA style?" is effectively "because it's
the MLA style."

Did the MLA style just coincidentally happen to use the same style that was in
use by US typesetters pre-typewritter? That seems to be what you suggest.

Or did MLA deliberately follow the older, pre-typewritter practice? That seems
far more likely to me, and is somewhat supported by the use of "This placement
is traditional in the United States."

You write "there was little need for style guides addressing submissions for
publication by persons unfamiliar with typographical practices."

Take "The Chicago Manual of Style" as an example. The first edition, from
1906, and titled "Manual of style, being a compilation of the typographical
rules in force at the University of Chicago press, to which are appended
specimens of types in use" clearly is not directed towards typewriter use. A
copy is at
[https://archive.org/details/manualofstylebei00univrich](https://archive.org/details/manualofstylebei00univrich)
. For example, rules 75-77 concern when to set extended quotes in a smaller
type. That's just not possible with a typewriter.

So, if there was little need for style guides other than for authors writing
with a typewriter, why does the Chicago Manual of Style exist?

Note too that while the Chicago Manual of Style prefers typewritten
submissions from authors, it will accept "perfectly clear handwriting" (page
95). That's because "style" includes more than typographical practices.

BTW, the first edition explains why it exists as (emphasis mine):

> As it stands, this Manual is believed to contain a fairly comprehensive,
> reasonably harmonious, and wholesomely practical set of work-rules _for the
> aid of those whose duties bring them into direct contact with the
> Manufacturing Department of The Press_. If, in addition to this its main
> object, this Manual of Style may incidentally prove helpful to other gropers
> in the labyrinths of typographical style, its purpose will have been
> abundantly realized.

Remember too that every town had a printing press, if not several. Those
typesetters surely want to make things look like what their customers expect -
where do _they_ learn those rules?

