Punctuation, Quotes

Not by anyone's standards. In American usage, the entire quote would be in double quotation marks, with 'Man' being in single quotation marks. In British usage, the entire quote would be within single inverted commas, with "Man" being in double inverted commas.

American usage:

"They also contain the collected works and history of a slave race previous to their existence, the race has been titled 'Man.'"

British usage:

'They also contain the collected works and history of a slave race previous to their existence, the race has been titled "Man."'

One of the Englishmen here may come along to dispute what i've written, but the American usage is correct. In my not unlimited experience, the English refer to the marks Americans call quotation marks as inverted commas.

Agreed, but that's not an absolute rule, you find both styles in UK English.

Interesting. It was read by British people in their 70's you would have thought they would have mentioned it. Even stranger is that word doesn't have an issue with it.

Just so that I'm clear though, the proper way to put a quote inside a quote is "Double on the outside and 'single' on the inside."

That is the common, accepted style in American usage. Note that this is a style issue--there is no special police force out there somewhere enforcing this. Note also that in your original sentence, you only closed the quoted word man, and not the entire sentence. Another example might work better:

"The proper study of 'Mankind' is Man."

--Alexander Pope

Note that the word mankind in enclosed in single quotes, and the entire quotation is closed with double quotes at the end of the sentence. You did not do that with your original quoted sentence. This is the standard usage even if the word in single quotes is the last word of the sentence. (Also note that there are no quote marks around mankind in the original quote by Pope.)

I see it. I didn't know what the style rule was and the closing of the entire dialogue and closing the quote on 'man' is where I was having my conflict. I know that society is shifting away from grammar and punctuation rules but I wanted mine to be tight.

Thanks for the help.

The referents of "They," "their," and "race entitled 'Man' " aren't clear. For instance Whit, with our first interpretation "They" refers to certain books; but then "previous to their existence" throws us for a loop. So try this:

"They also contain the collected works and history of a slave race previous to its existence….," meaning that of an earlier "slave race". Apparently the writer posits our demise, perhaps by a nuclear war, and the evolution of one entirely new to take its place, who in excavation of a building, for instance, unearth that set of historical tomes

You must understand however, that the sentence is open to 34 other interpretations (by actual count) depending entirely upon context. Once having established who where is doing exactly what, we can punctuate. Meantime here's my own contribution

Digging was called to a halt when found to contain bookcases suggesting a school or library. As Famir Gruppo reports, "They also contain the collected works and history of a slave race previous to its existence, which we now refer to as 'Man.' "

If you review this carefully, Whit, you will see another very close interpretation is possible involving not two but three possible civilizations though please don't ask me to analyze any possible simultaneity

You are quite right it does in fact take place at the end of the story and does tell of the end of man. As much as I wish I could tell you everything that leads up to that point sadly I cannot. 34 though? Really? Wow. I think I will make this website my regular destination for literary conundrums.

Aha!

Nah Less, just pulling my own leg. But if there are only two interpretations of each of the three words, then before analysis to eliminate any conflict, then eight interpretations are possible

Forgive pun

Twenty-seven however if you allow three

Still after our agreed change I'm still not quite sure whether it represents the second civi or the third. So, again notwithstanding contradictions, the original statement might have had 3 x 27 = 81 possible meanings

Personally I would say a "the race was called Man" with no quotes around Man (they are not necessary); works of art have titles, races and breeds have names. Also tense is important, which is why I used 'was'. To say that the race "has been called (or 'titled') Man" suggests that the name was invented in the recent past as viewed by the imaginary future writer. In fact to call the human race 'Man' is a bit nineteenth-century and definitely sexist. Feminists and others have argued (convincingly in my view) that the confusion of man as human and man as male are linguistic symptoms of male-centric definitions of humanity. The declining use of Man as the generic term suggests that these arguments have found some broad acceptance in the anglophone world.

Man. Yes it could be seen as sexist however, the word actress doesn't exist anymore and female actors are actors which previously was the masculine.

I like to argue that human is a compound word, the first part derived from hue which is a variant or shade of a color, the second part is man which means obviously, man. Therefor the human race is merely the shade of the "man" that came before us.

What about J.R.R. Tolkien? He uses the race of "Man" all the time.

I do see your point but considering the context which you are not fully privy to, I just can't change it.

As for the use of the word "titled" as opposed to "called," I just can't tell you.

After I hit the publish button on amazon and secure my copyright then I will spill the beans also it will be free for download for the first 5 days to coincide with a kickstarter campaign. No this isn't really longwinded spam/advertising I really needed an answer.

I like puns. Still I had no idea there was that much math in writing.

This is nonsense. The word comes from the Latin humanus "of man, human,"

Tolkien was a dessicated Oxford professor writing in the 1940s and 1950s.

I said I like to, I didn't say it wasn't nonsense.)

And yet his books and the movies based on them continue to use "the race of man."

I could say that the Ya-Ya Siterhood of the Travelling Pants doesn't have any strong male characters, I could say that about Charlies Angels, I could say that about Green Gables, I could say that every romance book ever published reduces the male character to a throbbing member with no real insight.

I don't because I don't care.

... and your point is?

, Oh, More! to be sure (another unforgivable pun)

After years of merciless attacks by certain other a2k who seem angry at all times about nearly everything I am convinced that 93.4 percent of such friction is attributable to misunderstanding