Space Between Double and Single Quotes?

[enuddleyarbl]

Probably not the best place for this question. But, I'm looking for opinions on whether or not there should be a space between the double and single quotation marks for a quotation within a quotation. According to Rule 7 of:

https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Also note that, as a courtesy, there is visible space between adjacent single and double quotation marks.

But, when I run across those in books, it looks jarring to me. So, I've been removing those spaces in the books I'm playing with. Yes, this is just for my own use, but if that's really the rule, should I reverse my search/replace and make sure there's a space in there instead of deleting any space that's there?

[Jellby]

I say no, I'd rather let the font kerning take care of those (even if they normally don't). In any case, "visible" does not mean "normal width". If I wanted to add some space, I'd add a non-breaking thin space (U+202F), the same that is (or should be) normally used in French with double punctuation signs (:, ;, !, ?).

[Turtle91]

If this is for your own use then do what you think looks best!

Otherwise I agree with Jellby.

[Quoth]

I agree with Jellby and Turtle91.
Definitively a source has no extra space and the rendering or typesetting should make it clear but even on a dumb system no space should work:
1. “Some dialogue, ‘a quotation’”
2. ‘Some dialogue, “a quotation”’

USA uses 1, Ireland tend tends to use 1 and UK uses either system depending on Publisher and era. But Ireland uses UK scheme for asides, phrase space en-dash space aside phrase space en-dash space phrase
USA is
phrase em-dash aside phrase em-dash phrase
But no-one normally puts spaces between nested quote types.

[enuddleyarbl]

OK. Thanks. The non-breaking thing space looks interesting, but I tend to stay away from non-breaking spaces. I'll just keep using no space between the various quotation marks in nested quotes.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

I'm looking for opinions on whether or not there should be a space between the double and single quotation marks for a quotation within a quotation.

According to Rule 7 of:

https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

To be typographically correct, there should be a:

• THIN SPACE (U+2009)

between the inner quote + outer quote.

For more details, see Jellby's + my responses in the famous thread:

• 2020: "Punctuation rules of thumb?"

We covered a ton of edge-cases, including this exact "which space between inner/outer quotes" one:

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

For more technical discussion, see this 2015 topic where I answered it:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...30#post3099330

Typographical Note: Technically, the proper character between an inner+outer quote would be a THIN SPACE (U+2009).

... but support on devices is poor. So go with   or no space at all. (I prefer no space and leave it up to the font's kerning.)

• “So then he told me, ‘Johnny, you’re an idiot!’ ”
  
  • Thin Space. Typographically correct
• “So then he told me, ‘Johnny, you’re an idiot!’ ”
  
  • No-Break Space. "Maximum compatibility", but too large.
• “So then he told me, ‘Johnny, you’re an idiot!’”
  
  • No Space. Leave it up to the font/device/program to do proper kerning.

Originally Posted by Jellby

I say no, I'd rather let the font kerning take care of those (even if they normally don't). [...] If I wanted to add some space, I'd add a non-breaking thin space (U+202F), [...].

Yes, exactly. Depends if it's for Print or Ebook too.

Personally, I'd rank them like this:

For Ebook (EPUB/MOBI)

• No space.
  
  • Leave it up to the font + kerning.
    
• NON-BREAKING SPACE
  
  • Max compatibility, while still giving you "a space AND non-breaking".
    
  • Ugly, but will work everywhere, in every font, on every device.
    

Then in a far third/fourth, I'd settle for:

• THIN SPACE
• NON-BREAKING THIN SPACE

And then:

• Normal SPACE.
  
  • Strongly recommend against this. Go with any of the other options instead.

For Print (InDesign/Word/LibreOffice)

• THIN SPACE
  
  • (or NON-BREAKING THIN SPACE*)
• No space.
  
  • If the font has proper kerning!

- - - - -

* Side Note: Most word processors + print layout programs already cause:

• THIN SPACE (U+2009)

to be non-breaking, and many fonts already include that character.

Technically, the most-correct Unicode character is:

• NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE (U+202F)

If you know your font actually has it + the device/program you're using supports it properly, then use it instead.

- - - - -

Side Note #2: For more technical info, see:

• 2020: "Non-breaking spaces in ePUB"

where I discussed French spacing + non-breaking characters in extreme detail.

French uses THIN SPACES all over the place, so this gap around punctuation becomes MUCH more of an issue.

- - - - -

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

But, when I run across those in books, it looks jarring to me.

Most ebooks + websites do it completely wrong. They use a normal SPACE, which is much, much too large, so it:

1. Stands out like a sore thumb.

2. Doesn't break properly, so you often see a dangling quotation mark all by itself:

“So then he told me, ‘Johnny, you’re an idiot!’
”

Line-breaks like this happen MUCH more often on skinny devices, like cellphones.

That's just plain AWFUL, and the worst of all worlds.

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

So, I've been removing those spaces in the books I'm playing with. Yes, this is just for my own use, but if that's really the rule, should I reverse my search/replace and make sure there's a space in there instead of deleting any space that's there?

Like Jellby said, in ebooks, I prefer the no-space version, then leave it up to the font. It:

• Makes the code and search/replace stuff SUPER simple and easy-to-read.
• Will never break.
• "Works" everywhere.

And if the font doesn't have the proper kerning for that pair? Well then, oh well.

In Print, definitely use the proper thin spacing though!

- - -

Side Note: And how often do they happen in the books you're reading?

(I might see 1 or 2 inner+double quotes appear in MAYBE 20ish books. And it's mostly because I deal with a lot of citations, which may have double/single quotes in the actual titles/articles/blockquotes.)

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

And if the font doesn't have the proper kerning for that pair? Well then, oh well.

Open the font in FontForge and add the kerning You're using your own side-loaded font, aren't you?

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Open the font in FontForge and add the kerning You're using your own side-loaded font, aren't you?

Yes, yes, of course I am! Yep, custom fonts to fix this issue everywhere.

This thin space is one of those rules I watch it like a hawk, like...

The wrong apostrophe in a shortened word/year:

• ✗ Go Get ‘Em, Team of ‘09
• ✓ Go Get ’Em, Team of ’09

or wrong character for feet/inches:

• ✗ I was 5’11” after standing with my back straight.
• ✓ I was 5′11″ after standing with my back straight.

or missing italics for variables:

• ✗ x + y = z
• ✓ x + y = z

or accidentally using italics for functions or Units:

• ✗ sin(x) = 2km
• ✓ sin(x) = 2 km

or italicizing their molecules in chemistry:

• ✗ H_2O + CO_2
• ✓ H_2O + CO_2

If I spot such a thing wrong/missing, I know exactly who to blame.

And then I think... if they messed up the little stuff, what OTHER things did they botch? I can't trust one thing coming out of this book! A missing thin space between the quotes? THE HORROR!!!

- - -

So, do yourself a favor and always use correct punctuation + italics!

You wouldn't want the world to go spinning off its axis and into the sun... or would you?

[enuddleyarbl]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

...The wrong apostrophe in a shortened word/year:

• ✗ Go Get ‘Em, Team of ‘09
• ✓ Go Get ’Em, Team of ’09

...

Yep. Those wrong leading apostrophe's have been popping up a lot for me lately (is there some special word for them?). I don't know if it's a problem with what the author/publisher did or if it's to do with Calibre's Smarten Punctuation function (probably because of nested quotations). But, I've been seeing a lot of the wrong version.

I've got a quick 'n dirty Saved Search to find them:

Search: (\s)‘([a-z])
Replace: \1’\2

but that finds oodles of false positives. One of these days, I'm going to have to think that through some more.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

Yep. Those wrong leading apostrophe's have been popping up a lot for me lately (is there some special word for them?).

I'd suggest smart-ass quotes.

By the way, a(nother) pet-peeve of mine is calling the "curly" or "typographic" quotes (i.e. “ ” ‘ ’, OK, they'd be curly in a serif font, I guess) "smart" quotes. There's nothing smart about them, smart quotes are a word processor feature that lets you type the straight quotes (" ') and it automagically converts them to the right (or left... or wrong) curly quote. Those wrongly oriented curly quotes are probably the "smart quote" feature getting it wrong, so I think smart-ass quote is appropriate

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

Yep. Those wrong leading apostrophe's have been popping up a lot for me lately (is there some special word for them?).

I forget the specific term for them.

I just call them "shortened" or "cut-off" words/years.

- - -

The most common one I see everywhere is:

• ✗ Rock ‘n’ Roll
• ✓ Rock ’n’ Roll

and, just a few weeks back, I was grabbing a box of ice cream and saw:

• ✗ Cookies ‘n Cream
• ✓ Cooking ’n’ Cream

Seriously, these are multi-million dollar companies doing this junk!

One of these days, I really should create a social media account and take pictures of these horrible mistakes. I'd probably get lots of free stuff!

- - -

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

I've got a quick 'n dirty Saved Search to find them:

Search: (\s)‘([a-z])
Replace: \1’\2

but that finds oodles of false positives.

Even better, use the two I've been using since at least 2016:

• 2016: "How to convert straight quotes to smart 'curly' typographer's quotes"

Originally Posted by enuddleyarbl

I don't know if it's a problem with what the author/publisher did or if it's to do with Calibre's Smarten Punctuation [...] But, I've been seeing a lot of the wrong version.

It's because of relying on automatic smart quotes... but like Jellby said, they're dumb!

The basic "smarten punctuation" algorithms are just a tiny bit more complex than this:

1. If a space/nothing to the left OR letter to the right:

Insert Left Quote.

2. If letter/something to the left:

Insert Right Quote.

While that might work for 99%, it gets 1% wrong.

And 1% * tons of quotation marks = a hell of a lot wrong.

There are some really egregious errors which constantly get busted—like quotes around EM DASHES or <i>italics</i>—but you can catch/correct most of that 1% with a few simple regexes.

(Beyond that, I use Toxaris's Dialogue Check, which is the ULTIMATE way of catching any and all nested/wrong quotes issues. The only bad thing is... it only works in Microsoft Word.)

Originally Posted by Jellby

There's nothing smart about them, [...] Those wrongly oriented curly quotes are probably the "smart quote" feature getting it wrong, so I think smart-ass quote is appropriate

Agreed.

There's this one rant I wrote a few years back, but I can't find it now.

I explained this exact problem in extreme detail, especially the egregious "wrong quotes" that Word/LibreOffice do as you type and how "dumb" the algorithms are + how I couldn't believe it's still not fixed after all these decades.

I swear it was in one of the threads where I described how Toxaris's EPUB Tools + Dialogue Check is the only way to properly nest/check ALL cases of wrong/missing/broken quotes.

- - -

With Toxaris's EPUB Tools + Dialogue Check:

• 99.0% of quotes will be taken care of fine.
• 00.9% will be automatically corrected with a user's list of exceptions.
  
  • (Similar to what my 2016 regexes linked above do.)
    
  • ’em, ’tis, ’twas, [...]
    
• 00.1% require manual validation/correction.
  
  • Toxaris's tool step-by-steps through the document with you, pointing out each case.
    
  • Missing quotation marks.
    
  • Two of same type in a row.
    
  • [...]
    

It's also smart enough to:

• Ignore apostrophes in the middle of words.
• Multiple paragraphs in a row with only an OPEN QUOTE (very common in Fiction for very long dialogues).
  
  • (Optional checkbox.)
    

so that throws away a whole class of false positives, so the stuff you're manually stepping through is very likely ACTUAL issues it caught.

(It saves SO MUCH TIME and has helped me catch HUNDREDS of actual typos I otherwise would've missed.)

- - -

Side Note: I also explained a similar method in 2020 on how to flip American<->British quotes.

If you wanted to do it the ol' manual way, there's ways of tagging most quotes/apostrophes differently.

But, honestly, ever since I tested Toxaris's... it blew everything else out of the water. I completely refuse to go back to the old ways.