Talk:end of quote

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

end of quote

SOP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, looks uncontroversial, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I think. The meaning is "that's the end of the quotation"; I don't think it's much more SOP than using "quote" to indicate the start of a quotation. —Ruakh_TALK 13:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep. At the very least, it is elliptical, along the lines Ruakh suggests. It makes explicit orally what is indicated by punctuation in written text. An alternative interpretation to that is: "At this point in the text, insert closing quotation marks.". Any reasonable pragmatic reading leads one to construe it as non NISoP.

I personally don't recall hearing the "of". I would expect "end quote" or "unquote". DCDuring TALK 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "of": I was struck by that, too, but consulted b.g.c., and found that it is very easily attestable. —Ruakh_TALK 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

At COCA: "unquote": 568, "end quote": 234, "end of quote": 12. "Unquote" is not to my taste, but I suppose I have heard it more often than "end quote". 272 or more of the uses of "unquote" are in "quote unquote" or "quote, unquote". COCA has no hits for "begin quote". DCDuring TALK 21:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's listed as a noun, and just seems to mean "the end of a quote". If the meaning is "that's the end of the quotation" then how can it be a noun? It's a bit like end of story then, though that doesn't always refer to the end of a story, I think end of quote always refers to the end of a quote. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It functions as is directive to someone taking dictation or as a marker of the change in the nature of what is being said from a direct quotation of someone to the current words of the current speaker. It is syntactically a noun (in principle, although I am not sure that its syntax matters in this sense) as are other directives such as the military command "attention". The synonymous directives "end quote" and "close quote" are syntactically imperative sentences, I think, as might be "unquote". Speech directives are usually taken as idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I suppose we should have a noun sense at [[semicolon]]: "A directive to someone taking dictation to insert a semicolon (punctuation mark)"? If not, how is that different?​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

1. In a written report of someone dictating something we would represent it as the words that are spoken. The person dictating would typically say "comma", "paragraph" etc, which would be so written in the written report, possibly set off by punctuation. If the custom were to say "hic paragraph" and "hic break", I think we would need an entry for them. If "hic" preceded every such instruction, I druther we didn't, instead keeping it all at [[hic]].
2. In speech, "end of quote" or its synonyms is of a different nature than what it terminates and what follows it and it marks what precedes and what follows as different in nature. The names of other punctuation marks are also, but more rarely used to place special emphasis on a statement. All such usage seems to follow the conventions of dictating. In a full dictionary each of these might get a sense to indicate such use. If "semicolon" were attestably so used, it would merit an entry. Period/full stop. End of paragraph. (?)
3. MWOnline has a separate sense for such uses of "quote", though they omit the expression under discussion and its synonyms. In a full explication of the simple grammar of such metalanguage, its synonyms "open quote" and "begin quote" and the ways of indicating termination of quotes would also need to be represented. I don't think that you will find anyone marking the termination of a quote by repeating "quote" or saying "quotation mark". That is, "quote" cannot be used in all places where quotation marks are to be inserted, contrary to the implication of the MWOnline entry. End of story. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re item 1, no, I've heard someone dictating who included words like semicolon (and in fact "the capital c court"), intending them to be transcribed as the symbol (and Court resp.). But he may be the exception, for all I know. Re item 2, right, end of quote seems to mean "that was the end of the quotation" in general speech also, but I was responding to the use in dictation only. Both are SOP though, I think.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the expressions we include as idioms are SoP, eg, be that as it may. But, because of how it is used, we included it. The new abbreviation, NISoP, better captures what we try to exclude. Many of our idioms are speech-interpretation directives. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to my "keep" vote: if someone can demonstrate, per WT:CFI, that this phrase refers to the punctuation mark that ends a quotation, then we should have that punctuation-mark sense, and maybe we should remove the existing sense. But I looked around for such a punctuation-mark sense, and couldn't find it; and anyway, I don't see how that would be an argument for deleting the entry. —Ruakh_TALK 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I agree with Msh210. Ƿidsiþ 07:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep this speech act. DAVilla 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

kept. no clear consensus for deletion. -- Prince Kassad 17:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)