Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

[RJR]

Greg put his comma in the wrong place and when I replied I forgot to put the comma in the right place. A few minutes later I wanted to change some wording in my text and I clicked on Modify. It didn't work the way I thought it would. Now it appears that my remark on page 2 that prompted several comments on page 3 of Greg's thread somehow ended up as a new thread. I have no idea how and it certainly wasn't my intention to take over his thread. As to Scarpia's remark I have noticed that many threads run on for years and, yes, there were some that I replied to that were quite old. I often go back and check old threads to see if anyone else has added a comment or two. I also spent a good two weeks rummaging many of your threads before I even began to make comments of my own.

[(poco) Sforzando]

BTW, if the paragraph ends with a quote with suspension points (as when  the quotation is incomplete), I guess the period is not put inside the quotation marks.

Example:

John said: "This rule is completely illogical...". 

Correct. No final period after the ellipses and quotation mark.

[Chaszz]

 Aside from the question of who is greater (if the question even makes real sense), Bach's Well Tempered Clavier was a foundational instruction book for young pianists of succeeding generations including Beethoven. Additionally it provided examples in every key and helped rid the musical world of tunings which did not allow excursions into keys distant from the tonic. Also its inspired short compositions nurtured the imaginations of generations of young composers, his use of complex subtle harmony as exemplary as his counterpoint. Beethoven had high praise for the WTC and for Bach, even though his knowledge of the old master's compositions was limited, as this was before Mendelssohn got the Bach revival underway. It is relatively easy to see Bach's influence after the Bach revival. But even before it, Bach was an important influence in the development of music, through the WTC and a few other compositions which remained prominent while most of his work had sunk into neglect.

[greg]

Greg put his comma in the wrong place and when I replied I forgot to put the comma in the right place.

Hmmm... must mean nearly everything I've ever read that does it like that is wrong, too?... or are you saying I should use a hyphen (-) instead?

It didn't work the way I thought it would. Now it appears that my remark on page 2 that prompted several comments on page 3 of Greg's thread somehow ended up as a new thread.

That's weird...

[(poco) Sforzando]

Greg put his comma in the wrong place

Why do you say that?

[Opus106]

It's like adding up a real number and an imaginary number to produce a complex number.

What's weird about complex numbers? I think they are great.

[Florestan]

Thanks, but I'll continue to overrate them.

Oh, please do --- just be sure you define them correctly. 

[Florestan]

Not sure that I would call Beethoven a Catholic. He believed in a Creator, but I can't recall him ever referring to Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church.

He wasn't a devout Catholic, for sure, and all the above is correct. But he didn't explicitly reject his Catholic upbringing or his formal membership in the RCC, and --- which is of paramount importance --- he did not reject the last rites. Now, Beethoven was a boldly frank person, and he would surely not refrained from denouncing and renouncing the RCC if that's how he felt.

[nigeld]

If the question was "who's music do you prefer to listen to?" I'd go with Bach, primarily because of his sacred cantata cycles.

However the question was to do with greatness.

I would say that because of the sheer breadth of musical forms that he wrote so consistenly well for and also the extent to which his musical voice developed so dramatically during his composing life I would go with Beethoven.

[Szykneij]

As to Scarpia's remark I have noticed that many threads run on for years and, yes, there were some that I replied to that were quite old. I often go back and check old threads to see if anyone else has added a comment or two. I also spent a good two weeks rummaging many of your threads before I even began to make comments of my own.

Many threads do run for a long time, but a thread that hasn't received a post for years has died a probably deserved death. When you start posting in numerous old threads, especially with cursory responses that don't lend themselves to new discussion, you bury the new and active threads that most members are following.

[Antoine Marchand]

Correct. No final period after the ellipses and quotation mark.

Thanks, Sforzando. It has been interesting to learn these particularities of the American English. I won't use your rules because -as everybody recognizes- they are highly illogical, but I love this kind of knowledge.     

[Florestan]

Thanks, Sforzando. It has been interesting to learn these particularities of the American English. I won't use your rules because -as everybody recognizes- they are highly illogical, but I love this kind of knowledge. 

Well, this is logical to me:

"Well," she replied, "there isn't much logic in that!"

because if you drop she replied you are left with Well, there isn't much logic in that! --- which is just the way it should be.

But

Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

is highly illogical (and I'm not even sure it is grammatically correct). The quotation marks here are not quite quoting anything: their function is to show that greater in the context has a rather elusive meaning and is not to be taken literally. The comma has nothing to do with this and its proper place should be outside the quotation marks, where the logic of its grammatical function dictates it should be placed.

[Opus106]

I won't use [USAmerican] rules because -as everybody recognizes- they are highly illogical

[A new case for a vendetta. ]

but I love this kind of knowledge. 

Many months ago, I mentioned this another thread, but I don't know if you saw it: http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm A wonderful site about English usage, etymology and stuff.

[mc ukrneal]

Well, this is logical to me:

"Well," she replied, "there isn't much logic in that!"

because if you drop she replied you are left with Well, there isn't much logic in that! --- which is just the way it should be.

But

Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

is highly illogical (and I'm not even sure it is grammatically correct). The quotation marks here are not quite quoting anything: their function is to show that greater in the context has a rather elusive meaning and is not to be taken literally. The comma has nothing to do with this and its proper place should be outside the quotation marks, where the logic of its grammatical function dictates it should be placed.

I believe that American and British English may differ on this point. In American English, the rule is that the comma goes inside the quotation regardless of logic. But I believe that British English may allow your variation. The rules get a bit more specific when the discussion turns to other punctuation marks. But perhaps a question for Cato's thread...

[Chaszz]

I believe that American and British English may differ on this point. In American English, the rule is that the comma goes inside the quotation regardless of logic. But I believe that British English may allow your variation. The rules get a bit more specific when the discussion turns to other punctuation marks. But perhaps a question for Cato's thread...

Would Shakespeare and the other writers of his time, who gave a great creative jolt to the language, have given a waste-object about this issue (To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum) ? [or] "(To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum.?)."?

[Gurn Blanston]

Would Shakespeare and the other writers of his time, who gave a great creative jolt to the language, have given a waste-object about this issue (To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum.) ? [or] "(To put it in a way suitable to a family-type forum.?)."?

In short; no.

If someone wants to start a punctuation thread in the Diner, feel free. Otherwise, any further posts on that subject will be binned. This topic was already silly enough before this all started

[Scarpia]

In short; no.

If someone wants to start a punctuation thread in the Diner, feel free. Otherwise, any further posts on that subject will be binned. This topic was already silly enough before this all started

I'm a little confused.  I think the question of whether a comma belongs inside or outside of quotation marks is much more substantial and interesting than whether Bach is "greater" than Beethoven.  And I'm not kidding.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm a little confused.  I think the question of whether a comma belongs inside or outside of quotation marks is much more substantial and interesting than whether Bach is "greater" than Beethoven.  And I'm not kidding.

....This topic was already silly enough before this all started

This should actually tell you my own feelings. The comma thing deserved 1 or 2 posts, the other thing didn't deserve any. And yet here we all are... 

[Josquin des Prez]

... or, at least, badly defined. 

A more palatable statement.

[Josquin des Prez]

Maybe I'm being pedantic but his negativity and snobbism is what gives us classical fans a bad name in some places

Having a bad name in certain places (specifically, the places that do not appreciate classical music, or great art in general) is actually a sign you are doing something right.