An argument could even be made for using a second period to close the outer sentence after resolving the inner sentence and the quote.
Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded, “I refute it thus.”.
This looks weird to me because it’s not what I’m used to, but it makes logical sense.
Indeed, this is what I use. It feels much more natural to me in the following case, where obviously our statement is not a question:
Dr Johnson kicked a large rock, and said, as his foot rebounded, “Do I refute it thus?”.
And “obviously” the full stop should go outside, because of:
Dr Johnson kicked a large rock, and said, as his foot rebounded, “Do I refute it thus?”, howling with pain.
And there’s nothing special about a question mark, so this rule should be identical if a full stop is substituted.
That’s what I do. I know it is wrong but honestly, I don’t care. It just makes more sense.
This is a very good situation for the punctuation under the quotes method alexgieg suggested.
That’s great. If I ever attempt to design my own conlang, I’m using this rule.
Indeed, see the 5th footnote!
An argument could even be made for using a second period to close the outer sentence after resolving the inner sentence and the quote.
This looks weird to me because it’s not what I’m used to, but it makes logical sense.
Indeed, this is what I use. It feels much more natural to me in the following case, where obviously our statement is not a question:
And “obviously” the full stop should go outside, because of:
And there’s nothing special about a question mark, so this rule should be identical if a full stop is substituted.
That’s what I do. I know it is wrong but honestly, I don’t care. It just makes more sense.
This is a very good situation for the punctuation under the quotes method alexgieg suggested.
That’s great. If I ever attempt to design my own conlang, I’m using this rule.
Indeed, see the 5th footnote!