Language and English

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Stan Barr wrote: These are all _typesetting_ rules, and not so much grammar rules. Furthermore, most of these rules are workarounds for problems introduced by the limited nature of the typewriter as compared to a full typesetting machine. Typesetting machines use spaces of varying widths according to complex rules---some of which are aesthetic in nature. Generally speaking, spaces after full stops in typeset materials are wider than spaces between words Typewriter rules like "two hyphens approximate one em-dash" (wrong, IMO, it should be three hyphens) are put in place because common typewriters have traded off mechanical complexity for widespread adoption and lack the full character set of typesetting machines. Many early typewriters, in an attempt to reduce mechanical complexity to the utmost, even lack differentiated type for the numerals '1' and '0' as either can be suitably approximated in typewritten documents by the lowercase letter 'l' and the uppercase letter 'O', respectively. Even the American English "rule" of placing all punctuation inside quotation marks is a _typographical convention_ that stems from the early days of movable type, when the period and comma were the most fragile pieces of type and were prone to breaking off in the press. Placing a period between a quotation mark and a space increased the mechanical stress on the die, and made it more likely to break than if it were "protected" on one side by other type. Example: ...a chicken". Sighing heavily, he... ...died suddenly," Ernestine remarked without... Should this tradition continue in an age where fragility of movable type is no longer a real concern, and punctuation placed inside quotation marks has the real possibility of confusing meaning? Example: At the SCM prompt, type, "SHOW BOOT." At the SCM prompt, type, "SHOW BOOT". Which one is correct? Anyway. Don't confuse typographical convention with rules of grammar. Notice in my first line of text, the underscores surrounding the word, "typesetting". Is that "incorrect grammar"? Or is it a typesetting convention for approximating emphasis in a medium which cannot predictably reproduce emphasized text? ok r. PS: don't forget that underlining, as a typographic convention, came about because italic text could not predictably be reproduced on a typewriter.