Question about puncutation

[jojom]

In Sunday's newspaper I came across the following:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

In as much as every sentence should end in a period, question mark, or exclamation point, shouldn't there have been one here?

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S.. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

Can the period indicating that the "S" stands for a word also function as the end stop period? I know it looks better with a single period, but shouldn't function override appearance? What if the period occurs within a quotation?

He said, "The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S." Blah blah blah.​

Period after the ". . . U.S.". Blah blah blah, or not ". . . U.S." Blah blah blah?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S.. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."

^ It doesn't look right to me, but I tend to be grammatically challenged. Were I the Editor, I would have looked at ...

The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . .​

and changed it to ...

The scrutiny isn't limited to the United States. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . .
​

Nevertheless, it's an interesting question.

 

[Tumah]

What's the problem?
The scrutiny isn't limited to the United States of Australia...

They just wrote it in shorthand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Sunday's newspaper I came across the following:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

In as much as every sentence should end in either period, question mark or exclamation point shouldn't there have been one here?

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S.. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

Can the period indicating the "S" stands for a word also function as the end stop period? I know it looks better with a single period, but shouldn't function override appearance? What if the period occurs within a quotation?

He said, "The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S."​

Period after the ". . . U.S.". Blah blah blah, or not? ". . . U.S." Blah blah blah.

The style guides I'm familiar with say that periods are either not required or incorrect in abbreviations made up of upper-case letters.

I would change it to:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the US. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."

BTW: when an abbreviation does contain periods (e.g. if it's lower case), you would use only one. For instance:


"He went to bed in New York at 11:00 p.m. Australia was just waking up."

 

[jojom]

What's the problem?
The scrutiny isn't limited to the United States of Australia...

They just wrote it in shorthand.

Think the following is acceptable wording: "The scrutiny isn't limited to the United States America" (the "of" was not part of the wording)?

The style guides I'm familiar with say that periods are either not required or incorrect in abbreviations made up of upper-case letters.

I would change it to:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the US. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."

BTW: when an abbreviation does contain periods (e.g. if it's lower case), you would use only one. For instance:


"He went to bed in New York at 11:00 p.m. Australia was just waking up."

I think your change is better than the original.

 

[Tumah]

Think the following is acceptable wording: "The scrutiny isn't limited to the United States America" (the "of" was not part of the wording)?

It's just USA, where they spelled out the A.

I wasn't being serious though.

 

[jojom]

It's just USA, where they spelled out the A.

I wasn't being serious though.

Didn't think you were, but on the outside chance . . . . . . . . .

 

[Stevicus]

In Sunday's newspaper I came across the following:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

In as much as every sentence should end in a period, question mark, or exclamation point, shouldn't there have been one here?

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S.. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

Can the period indicating that the "S" stands for a word also function as the end stop period? I know it looks better with a single period, but shouldn't function override appearance? What if the period occurs within a quotation?

The period can double as both, to indicate an abbreviation and the end of a sentence.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#periods


This one is simple enough: never double up periods. If a statement ends with “etc.” the period in the abbreviation does double duty, serving as the full stop to end the sentence. If, however, you need another mark of punctuation after an abbreviation, you can put it after the period. So:

• This was her first trip to the U.S. (The period does double-duty, ending both the abbreviation and the sentence.)
• Is this your first trip to the U.S.? (The period ends the abbreviation, but the question mark ends the sentence.)
• On her first trip to the U.S., Kristina lost her passport. (The period ends the abbreviation, but the sentence keeps going after the comma.)

The only thing to remember: don't double the periods. Everything else is logical enough.

 

[Stevicus]

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."​

Another point of style which a lot of people use is to put two spaces after every sentence.

Compare the above quoted sentence with:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing..."

The extra space makes all the difference.

 

[Desert Snake]

In Sunday's newspaper I came across the following:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

In as much as every sentence should end in a period, question mark, or exclamation point, shouldn't there have been one here?

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S.. Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."
​

Can the period indicating that the "S" stands for a word also function as the end stop period? I know it looks better with a single period, but shouldn't function override appearance? What if the period occurs within a quotation?

He said, "The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S." Blah blah blah.​

Period after the ". . . U.S.". Blah blah blah, or not ". . . U.S." Blah blah blah?

To be honest, I probably would have used a comma, or a semi-colon, there. I think that if one is using the period, though, it seems like there should be another period, after the abbreviation. /just guessing, here.

 

[jojom]

Another point of style which a lot of people use is to put two spaces after every sentence.

Compare the above quoted sentence with:

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing..."

The extra space makes all the difference.

Trouble is, as with the spacing mechanics here on Religious Forums, a double space often times won't reproduce.
Here are two sentences. One written with a single space.

He was right. I was wrong.
​

and the other written with a double space.

He was right. I was wrong.​

No difference.

 

[jojom]

To be honest, I probably would have used a comma, or a semi-colon, there. I think that if one is using the period, though, it seems like there should be another period, after the abbreviation. /just guessing, here.

Although I didn't complete the next sentence, so it may not be apparent, it does require that the preceding sentence end with hard punctuation, in this case a period.

 

[jonathan180iq]

My mom has taught English for the last 40 something years. She says we Americans put periods after abbreviations...
She also said they shouldn't have ended the sentence with an abbreviated noun, but I guess that's a different topic of conversation.

EDIT: I wrote her experience as 30 years. I was wrong. (My mother was obviously not a math teacher.)

 

[Stevicus]

Trouble is, as with the spacing mechanics here on Religious Forums, a double space often times won't reproduce.
Here are two sentences. One written with a single space.

He was right. I was wrong.
​

and the other written with a double space.

He was right. I was wrong.​

No difference.

Yes, I noticed that after submitting my post. I wonder why it does that.

I'll try three spaces. I wonder if it works with four spaces. I'll see how it turns out.

Edit: It apparently reduces down to one space between sentences even with two, three, or four spaces in between them. That is just totally weird.

 

[jojom]

Yes, I noticed that after submitting my post. I wonder why it does that.

I'll try three spaces. I wonder if it works with four spaces. I'll see how it turns out.

Edit: It apparently reduces down to one space between sentences even with two, three, or four spaces in between them. That is just totally weird.

From what I've read it's not an uncommon choice. Seems that there's no agreed upon way of doing it: single or double space. So it's left to the discretion of the publisher.

From Wikipedia.

"Today the desired or correct sentence spacing is often debated. Many sources now say additional space is not necessary or desirable. From around 1950, single sentence spacing became standard in books, magazines and newspapers. However, some sources still state that additional spacing is correct or acceptable. The debate continues, notably on the World Wide Web—as many people use search engines to try to find what is correct. Many people prefer double sentence spacing for informal use because that was how they were taught to type. There is a debate on which convention is more readable, but the few recent direct studies conducted since 2002 have produced inconclusive results."​

 

[Revoltingest]

Another point of style which a lot of people use is to put two spaces after every sentence.
Compare the above quoted sentence with:
"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing..."
The extra space makes all the difference.

I agree.
The extra space makes it look better (easier to read).
To double up on the periods would look funny.

But the real error is that it should have read....
"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate was eaten by a dingo."

 

[Stevicus]

From what I've read it's not an uncommon choice. Seems that there's no agreed upon way of doing it: single or double space. So it's left to the discretion of the publisher.

From Wikipedia.

"Today the desired or correct sentence spacing is often debated. Many sources now say additional space is not necessary or desirable. From around 1950, single sentence spacing became standard in books, magazines and newspapers. However, some sources still state that additional spacing is correct or acceptable. The debate continues, notably on the World Wide Web—as many people use search engines to try to find what is correct. Many people prefer double sentence spacing for informal use because that was how they were taught to type. There is a debate on which convention is more readable, but the few recent direct studies conducted since 2002 have produced inconclusive results."​

I think it's a matter of preference, but what I was referring to was whatever glitch there is in this software which causes a post to automatically reduce to one space between sentences, regardless of how many spaces I enter when composing.

My teachers used to prefer two spaces between sentences, as well as double spacing between lines when typing.

 

[jojom]

I think it's a matter of preference, but what I was referring to was whatever glitch there is in this software which causes a post to automatically reduce to one space between sentences, regardless of how many spaces I enter when composing.

And I'm saying it isn't a glitch, but the preference of the poobahs in charge.

 

[Stevicus]

And I'm saying it isn't a glitch, but the preference of the poobahs in charge.

Really? You mean someone programmed it that way on purpose?

 

[dust1n]

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S. Australia's senate in April held a hearing."

Would be correct by basically any journalist style guide, and probably for any grammatical guide. I use my own grammar rules often when I write for pleasure.

Also...

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S? Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."

"The scrutiny isn't limited to the U.S! Australia's senate in April held a hearing . . . ."

Would be correct.