Re: Creditors - Final Accounts

On 27 Nov, 15:28, "Tim" <m...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"PeterSaxton" wrote
...
CORRECT - A: Six plus six equals twelve;
B: A said: "Six plus six equals twelve"

INCORRECT - A: Six plus six equals twelve;
B: A said: "Two sixes equal twelve"

CORRECT - A: Six plus six equals twelve;
B: A said that two sixes equal twelve.

The difference is that if somebody put text in quotes it
means that it is an exact copy of the quote. This wasn't...

"Tim" wrote:
As usual, you are very narrow-minded, Peter.

I refer you to Wikipedia :-
"... another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph
or sentence, for example in philosophical essays, is to recognise
double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and
single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or
a quotation where grammar, pronouns or plurality have been
changed in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation..."

Of course, the OP used *single* quotation marks...

...

"PeterSaxton" wrote
I note that a more honest quote from the article would be as follows:

Not more 'honest', merely *fuller*.





"PeterSaxton" wrote
START OF QUOTE

It is generally considered incorrect to use quotation marks
for paraphrased speech where they may give the impression
that the paraphrasing represents the actual words used.

If HAL says: "All systems are functional.", then:

Wrong: HAL said that "Everything was going extremely well."
Right: HAL said that everything was going extremely well.
Right: HAL said, "All systems are functional."

However, another convention when quoting text in the body
of a paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical
essays, is to recognise double quotation marks as marking
an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a
paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns
or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence
containing the quotation (this is the same as reported speech).

END OF QUOTE

I notice you chose to omit the first sentence from your
quote which would appear to contradict your point.

That's because the article gave two *different* conventions,
and the relevant convention was the second one.

I fail to see why the second convention is more relevant than the
first when the first convention was the one you were criticising me
for following.

The OP was (obviously!) applying the *second*
convention, so the first one is irrelevant to the discussion.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
You also chose to omit the first word (However)
which, in the context, is a very important word.

No, it's not important to the second convention at
all. It merely joins the first sentence to the second,
showing that they are *different* conventions.

Why did you omit the first word from the sentence?

"PeterSaxton" wrote
It would appear another example of you deliberately
avoiding something that doesn't support your argument...

Hardly. I'm just snipping the irrelevant
bits -- you should try it yourself sometime!

Unfortunately, your definition of irrelevant coincides with parts that
cast doubt on your arguments validity.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
... and also editing out of a sentence a word that casts
doubt on the validity of the convention you wish to promote.

Eh? You think that suggesting a convention is different to another, casts
doubt on its validity? In that case, the first convention is equally
invalid

I did not say that suggesting a convention is different to another
casts doubt on its validity. Please show me where I said that.

I explained fully why your "convention" is less worthy.

I notice you ignored my comment "I'd be interested if you know of
anybody
else who uses quotation marks in the way you suggest." I'm sure you
will say it's because it isn't relevant but in truth you ignored it
because you don't know of a single person who uses the convention you
are attempting to support.

Similarly, you don't know of a single person who supports your
assertion that bank reconciliations are unnecessary.

This is exactly why I believe you come on usenet simply to argue
without concern to any merit in your argument.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creditors - Final Accounts
    ... means that it is an exact copy of the quote. ... double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, ... single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or ... another convention when quoting text in the body ...
    (uk.business.accountancy)
  • Re: Article on Finno-Ugric in the Economist
    ... > The US convention for numbers in the billions and trillions. ... of all English language used in the UK. ... > Is it absolutely wrong to use ASCII quotation marks for a piece of German ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Article on Finno-Ugric in the Economist
    ... >> The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so. ... > the dash issue. ... > quotation purported to be Finnish. ... > A quotation presented in quotation marks shall be a verbatim quotation, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Frank Wood Accounting Books
    ... They do indicate a quote. ... quotation marks would serve no purpose at all. ... and encountered the wolf who had disguised himself as granny. ...
    (uk.business.accountancy)
  • Re: 2006 BCon roll call - Whos going to Madison?
    ... Well, Lynn allen, it's nice of you to quote the entire exchange, "so no ... not voting then complaining about politicians. ... and it was a great convention. ... Nothing rude I can see, though he does suggest you are unfamiliar with ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)