Welcome Guest!
 Editorium Update
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
Editorium Update 2003/08/27: Quote, Unquote  The Editorium
 Aug 28, 2003 12:29 PDT 

Thanks for reading Editorium Update! The Editorium does not send
unsolicited email messages. You've received this newsletter because you
subscribed to it or a friend has forwarded it to you. To subscribe or
unsubscribe, see the instructions at the end of this message.

Editorium Update is published by the Editorium, which provides Microsoft
Word macros and other resources for publishing professionals. For more
information, visit us at http://www.editorium.com.


Tips for Publishing Professionals Using Microsoft Word
August 27, 2003


Feature Article: Quote, Unquote

Readers Write: Style by Microsoft

Resources: Garbl's Writing Center

Still working the hard way? Try Editor's ToolKit Plus, our premier
add-in program for Microsoft Word. Automatically clean up common
editorial and typographical problems, convert automatically numbering
notes to text (or vice versa), convert files for QuarkXPress, and make
editing a snap (well, snappier than usual). You can try the program at
no charge for 45 days:


You can buy our book, Total Word Domination, in PDF form here:

Or, you can buy it for Microsoft Reader here:


By Jack M. Lyon

If you've read many past issues of this newsletter, you know that I
loathe Word's AutoFormat options, although I do use one of
them--"Replace straight quotes with smart quotes." But sometimes, no
matter how hard I try, I can't insert a quotation mark going the right
direction. If I want a closing quotation mark, Word insists on giving me
an opening one--or vice versa. If you've run into this problem, you
know how maddening it can be. Wouldn't it be nice to type precisely the
kind of "smart" quotation marks you need without having Word
second-guess what you're doing? It turns out there's a built-in way to
do that. Here are the key commands you need:


To get an opening double quotation mark, press this key combination:
CTRL + `

(That little character on the end there is the single quotation mark on
the key to the left of the "1" key on your keyboard.)

Next, press this:

(That little character on the end is an apostrophe. In other words, just
type a quotation mark as you usually would.)

There's your opening double quotation mark.


To get a closing double quotation mark, press this:
CTRL + '

Then press this:


To get an opening single quotation mark, press this:
CTRL + `

Then press this:


To get an closing single quotation mark, press this:
CTRL + '

Then press this:

Now that I've told you all of that, I've got to say that I don't much
like those key combinations. They're hard to type, and they seem
inconsistent. Luckily, Word allows us to create our own key
combinations, so let's try setting up a more natural and consistent

1. Click Insert > Symbol > Symbols tab.

2. Make sure the "Font" list shows "(normal text)."

3. Make sure the "Subset" list shows "General Punctuation."

On the bottom row in the fifth column, you'll see an opening single
quotation mark.

In the sixth column, you'll see a closing single quotation mark.

In the ninth column, you'll see an opening double quotation mark

And in the tenth column, you'll see a closing double quotation mark.

Now let's assign some keys:

1. Click the opening single quotation mark.

2. Click the "Shortcut Key" button.

3. Press the new key combination you want to use. I'm thinking this one:

CTRL + '

4. Click the "Assign" button.

5. Click the "Close" button.

While we're still in there, let's assign the rest of the quotation
marks. To do so, repeat steps 1 through 5 for each quotation mark. Here
are the other key combinations I'm going to use:

For the closing single quotation mark: ALT + '

For the opening double quotation mark: SHIFT + CTRL + '

For the closing double quotation mark: SHIFT + ALT + '

When you're finished, press that final "Close" button to put away the
"Symbol" dialog.

That should do it. Note that you can continue to use Word’s AutoFormat
quotation marks if you want. But when you need to, you can easily
specify exactly the kind of quotation marks you need to use.



After reading last week's article "Style by Microsoft," quite a few
readers sent additional Microsoft "style" nominations for our "hall of
shame." Many thanks to all of them!

Kenneth Sutton wrote:

Here's my nomination of the "replace internet paths with hyperlinks".

In a similar vein, India Amos noted:

How about this classic: e-mail addresses underlined (not to mention blue
and hotlinked). Yecch! Have you ever _deliberately_ clicked a linked
e-mail address in a Word file? Me neither.

Finally, Andrea Balinson wrote:

The "style by Microsoft" example that drives me crazy is "Internet and
network paths with hyperlinks," which makes Web addresses appear
underlined in blue. It's one thing if the document you're writing is
designed to be read on a computer; in that case, having URLs as
hyperlinks can actually be useful. Most of the time, though, I see
printed letters, memos, and other paper materials in which the URLs are
underlined -- obviously because whoever created the documents didn't
know or care enough to stop Word from formatting them as links.

LeAnne Baird wrote:

Here's my pet grammar-spelling peeve:

If you don't know that 'til is a contraction of until, Microsoft spell
checker only gives you till as an option, not till and 'til. What would
it cost them to fix this? .00000000000001 per licensed copy.

Caryl Wenzel wrote:

I have complained many a time of "style" imposed by Microsoft that is
not accepted in an editorial style manual. Yet, someone at Microsoft
thinks he or she is doing someone a favor by providing all these
so-called helpful ideas.

I routinely omit such formatting and follow traditional editorial
guidelines. I just wish Microsoft would learn the same. In fact, even
Microsoft publishes it own style manuals for the books its publishing
arm produces, and many of these imposed styles are not allowed.

Peg Hausman wrote:

My pet peeve about Word's "help" is its default enforcement of the
alleged rule against using "which" to introduce a restrictive
(essential) clause in a sentence. I've appended a longish e-mail (below)
that I sent to a local electronic discussion group a while back
explaining why the rule doesn't hold water. But the short version is
that it was originally simply a mild preference expressed by H. W.
Fowler in his famous _Modern English Usage_ (1926). The preference got
picked up by AP and was soon presented as grammatical gospel,
reproducing itself via journalism teachers all over the United States,
in spite of the fact that it fails to reflect most normal educated

Redmond has picked up this fiction and incorporated it into its Grammar
function. Type a sentence like "The only document which really mattered
was the one they neglected to send" into Word, and it will put the
well-known wavy green underline under the fourth through the sixth
words. A couple of investigative clicks will get you this message:

"If the marked group of words is essential to the meaning of your
sentence, use 'that' to introduce the group of words. Do not use a
comma. If the words are not essential to the meaning of your sentence,
use "which" and separate them with a comma."

I have two problems with this. One is that it is too dogmatic: If MS
wants to help people abide by AP (and AP-influenced) rules, that's fine,
but it should be noted as a matter of AP house style and not as law.

The other problem is that a lot of people won't get as far as the second
click, so won't know what the wavy green line is about. They may,
however, discover through experiment that adding a couple of commas will
make the wavy green line go away. I've seen quite a number of
restrictive clauses incorrectly garnished with commas for this reason,
and the effect can be most confusing. If you add commas to the sentence
above--"The only document, which really mattered, was the one they
neglected to send"--it promptly sounds witless and absurd.

As noted below, there's a longer discussion at this URL:


I'm afraid even the abbreviated polemic in this e-mail may be too long
for you to use [Editor's note: Not at all. It's fascinating!], but in
any case, thanks for the chance to cast my vote against a really
annoying Wordism!

-------- Included Message --------
Subject: Re: [dcpubs] Which old which? The wicked which!
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:30:55 -0500
From: Peg Hausman <phau-@afr-sd.org>
To: DCPubs mailing list <dcp-@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1a5.d64a18-@aol.com> <3DF646D8-@cox.net>

Failure to observe the which/that distinction doesn't reflect evolution
of any sort, for the simple reason that it has never at any time been a
normal rule of English.

Apparently we owe the rise of the which/that rule to Fowler's _Modern
English Usage_ (1926). Fowler mentions that some writers seem to follow
a practice of using "which" only for non-restrictive clauses, and says
he thinks it would be a good idea. But he certainly doesn't present it
as a law of the language, current or past: "Some there are who follow
this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the
practice either of most or of the best writers."

In fact, a couple of centuries earlier the feeling was that "that" was a
rather dubious pronoun, best avoided by careful writers. Here's part of
a thumbnail history of which/that from the _Merriam-Webster Dictionary
of English Usage_:

_That_ is our oldest relative pronoun. According to McKnight 1928 _that_
was prevalent in early Middle English, _which_ began to be used as a
relative pronoun in the 14th century, and _who_ and _whom_ in the 15th.
_That_ was used not only to introduce restrictive clauses, but also
nonrestrictive ones. . . .

By the early 17th century, _which_ and _that_ were being used pretty
much interchangeably. . . . During the later 17th century, . . . _that_
fell into disuse, at least in literary English. It went into such an
eclipse that its reappearance in the early 18th century was noticed and
satirized by Joseph Addison in _The Spectator_ (30 May 1711) in a piece
entitled 'Humble Petition of _Who_ and _Which_ against the upstart Jack
Sprat _That_.'

Unfortunately, Fowler's "it would be nice" notion about keeping "which"
nonrestrictive was apparently picked up by someone at AP and
incorporated into the AP stylebook. As a result, professors at
journalism schools across the land started teaching the which/that rule
as gospel, and editors influenced by AP style have been trying to impose
it on the general public ever since. It's in quite a number of
stylebooks now. The only hitch is that it has never made it into the
common language--not only of those who barely made it through English
101 but even of the professionally literate. As the _Merriam-Webster
Dictionary of English Usage_ noted in 1989:

If the discussions in many of the handbooks are complex and burdened
with exceptions, the facts of usage are quite simple. Virginia McDavid's
1977 study shows that about 75 percent of the instances of _which_ in
edited prose introduce restrictive clauses; about 25 percent,
nonrestrictive ones.

We conclude that at the end of the 20th century, the usage of _which_
and _that_ --at least in prose--has pretty much settled down. You can
use either _which_ or _that_ to introduce a restrictive clause--the
grounds for your choice should be stylistic--and _which_ to introduce a
nonrestrictive clause.

Please look at Ms. McDavid's figures again: "which" introduced
restrictive clauses *three times as often* as it introduced
non-restrictive ones, in *edited* prose. Read a few novels by good,
sensitive authors, and note the same pattern. Listen to intelligent
people talking, and note the same pattern. In trying to browbeat the US
at large (forget the UK) into observing the which/that "rule," we're
tilting at windmills, spitting into the wind, beating our heads against
the wall, trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon, and otherwise
wasting our precious time.

A perverse recent development is that our buddies at Microsoft have
incorporated the rule into their grammar-checking software. As a result,
people who have no notion of the rule are mystified by seeing wiggly
green lines underneath sentences that look just fine to them. On
experimenting, some of them find that adding a couple of commas makes
the green lines go away. The result is mispunctuated restrictive clauses
("the product, which drew the most attention at the inventors' show, was
the autopiloted heat-seeking mousetrap. . ."), surely a worse plague
than the original alleged problem.

I agree that it would be a nice rule if it existed in a linguistically
meaningful sense. There are, in fact, a lot of things on my wish list
for the English language, including a decent spelling system and a
genuine gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun, but wishing won't
make it so.

There's a long but interesting discussion of the issue at


I think the remarks by Jane Lyle in this posting, in particular, are
dead on (she's managing editor of Indiana University Press and one of
the mavens of copyediting-l). Or just look at very thorough treatment of
the question in the _Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage_. (I'm
forever recommending this book and hope I'm not too monotonous about it,
but I do think leaves all other usage guides in the dust.)

If you have questions, hints, or comments you'd like to share, send an
email message here:



Garbl's Writing Center

Garbl (Gary B. Larson) provides a free editorial style manual, an
annotated directory of writing Web sites, a concise writing guide, and a
personalized advice and writing forum. Lots of good stuff for writers
and editors:


If you'd like to tell us about a resource that others might find useful,
please email us here: mailto:resou-@editorium.com



Thanks for subscribing to Editorium Update. We publish the newsletter
free of charge, asking only that you forward it to friends and
associates who might find it useful. (Please get their approval before
you send it.) We'd also appreciate your suggestions for newsletter
articles and improvements. Please email your comments here:

You can read past issues of the newsletter here:



Editorium Update (ISSN 1534-1283) is published by:

Microsoft Word Add-Ins for Publishing Professionals

Copyright © 2003 by the Editorium. All rights reserved. Editorium Update
and Editorium are trademarks of the Editorium.

You may manually forward Editorium Update in its entirety to others (but
not charge for it) and print or store it for your own use. Any other
broadcast, publication, retransmission, copying, or storage, without
written permission from the Editorium, is strictly prohibited. If you're
interested in reprinting one of our articles, please send an email
message here: mailto:repr-@editorium.com

Editorium Update is provided for informational purposes only and without
a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not
limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, and freedom from infringement. The user assumes the
entire risk as to the accuracy and use of this document.

The Editorium is not affiliated with Microsoft Corporation.



If you haven't subscribed to Editorium Update but would like to, send a
blank email message here: mailto:editorium--@topica.com.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email message here:

We do not sell, rent, or give our subscriber list to anyone.
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.