BradP:Some words, and especially phrases, do not quite literally describe the object or action referred to. It is common to use quotes for such words/phrases.

Not in any style guide I've ever read. Quotes are for quotes and for titles, NOT for marking out words that aren't to be taken literally.

He was too "tongue tied" to change their minds.

Nope, I would never use quotes for that. Tongue-tied is a common figure of speech. It's not a title, it's not a quotation of a person, there's no reason to put it in quotes.

We ran into some "potholes" along the way.

I don't know where you live but I can't ever conceive of putting potholes in quotes, for any reason. It is a perfectly good word. I see it in the newspaper all the time. I see the word in headlines and articles all winter long, where I live. Because DC has potholes that will chew up your car and spit it out again. Or perhaps using your system of quotes, I should say that "DC" has "potholes" that "chew up" your "car" and "spit it out" again. I don't know where you live, where they put quotes around every third word, but it isn't done here.

A "potty" is "A small pot for use as a toilet by an infant or young child."

Maybe it's a regionalism where I live, but people here use the word potty all the time when they talk to children about real toilets.

But "potty training" usually refers to using a toilet, urinal, or otherwise acceptable receptacle for releasing bodily waste. It does not specifically refer to a "potty". It would be quite silly to refer to a toilet as the "potty" outside of that slang.

It's only so silly as the rest of the language we use when talking to children. We don't ask them if their stomach hurts, we ask if they have a tummy ache. And you don't have to put that in quotes just because it's not standard scientific language.

So by and large, quite acceptable!!

No, by and large, not acceptable at all, to use it as you've described. If someone wrote me an e-mail saying that they ran into a "pothole" on the way to my house, but that it was ok, because the jolt left their annoying brother-in-law "tongue-tied", I would think that this person perhaps didn't speak English well enough to know that those things do not require quotes.

P.S. I am especially "spot on" with all my other arguments.

No, you are not spot on at all, in my opinion. And putting spot on in quotes makes it look ridiculous, and it's completely wrong, as is every other example you've given. Interestingly enough, I can't even tell exactly when you think that quotes should be used, because you didn't even consistently mark out standard English. Spot on is not an alternate name for something, it is a colloquialism, and perfectly good English, for non-formal use. No need for quotes there. Calling a full-size toilet a potty could be construed as calling something by an alternate name, though that's a weak example, because everyone knows (at least where I live) that regular toilets are frequently called potties when talking to little kids. Let alone the term "potty training", which has roughly three times as many hits on Google as "toilet training", and which is the subject of countless articles on serious websites, including the Mayo Clinic. I didn't see even one of those websites put it in quotes. Potty training is perfectly good everyday English. We don't use it perhaps in the Infant Care Journal of Science, but for everyday use, it's perfect, and it has no need whatsoever for quotes. A pothole is perfectly good English, period. I see newspaper articles about potholes all the time. And I would like to know what to call it, if not a pothole. Again, no need for quotes.

Any newspaper uses any of the expressions you mentioned without quotes, and newspapers are fairly linguistically conservative. I did a Google search and easily found a sports headline that said something like "Expectations spot on for Wildcats". (and no, Wildcats was not in quotes, even though it is a team called the Wildcats, and not, in fact, a pack of dangerous wildcats).

Quotes are to be used to mark quotations. OR they are to be used to give a title of something like a short story, a song, an article, a poem, etc. They are used for a couple variations on these purposes - John "The Rock" Williams - "The Rock" is like a title, it's another name for John Williams.

He is not a rock, but we call him "the rock", so it's quoting the people who call him that, when we use those quotes.

I'd like to know what style guide you're using for your views on quotes! Perhaps it's from a school of thought I haven't heard of, that is perhaps regional or not well-known. Can you find a reference?

I am coming to think that you are just bound and determined to disagree with me.

You say you are not a prescriptivist, but you want me to find you a style guide on quotes. This doesn't need one. People put words in quotes that do not literally mean the word all the time. If this isn't "officially" acceptable, it should be, because words are not the actual objects we speak of; they are representations with various degrees of appropriateness. The more a word or phrase diverges from the actual object, the more it warrants a quote. This is the very reason a quote creates irony when it fits the word perfectly!

A potty is simply not the same thing as a toilet. How common the usage is with children doesn't have much to do with anything when writing to adults.

Along this line I was referring to the usage of "potholes" to describe any of various obstacles in completing a task. A pothole is not an obstacle.

Using quotes on "tummy" or "potty" is especially apt because you are quoting the term you use when speaking to children.

erinja:Any newspaper uses any of the expressions you mentioned without quotes, and newspapers are fairly linguistically conservative.

You must have a pretty spunky local newspaper!
Most of the newspapers I've read often use informal or just plain weird language. Then again I've heard time and time again that the Advertiser (a major Australian newspaper, in fact, the only one I think most South Australians even care about) is written for 9 year olds.

That all said, I don't know what this whole deal with the quotes is. Quotes should only ever be used for technical jargon or uncommon names IMHO, e.g.:
- "I was just playing this awesome game called "Black"
- "I was just eating a "muffin bar""
etc. Although it'd depend on your audience. E.g.:
- (me to my nanna) "Me and my friends use 'MSN' all the time" (probably followed by an explanation of what MSN is)
- (me to my mate) "Oh yea mate ill join ya on msn later, but 4 now brb".

The whole point of quotes is to quote a name or phrase or sentence etc, especially in the case of nouns when you're not sure your reader will 100% accept you using the noun as an actual certified dictionary listed English word.

And potholes, potties, etc all sound like certified dictionary listed English words to me. In regards to putting "potty training" in quotations, I guess that's not too uncommon since some might just simply call it "learning to sh:: without making a mess" . Of course when using quotation marks it's pretty much writing etiquette to actually describe/explain what on earth this quoted thing is.

As far as the divisibility of shopping items goes (epic wording whoever wrote this, Tommjames I think), I have to say that in the end none of it matters provided the point is communicated in a form that any English speaker could understand. Fewer, less, unmore, as long as it makes sense I say go for it. Personally, unmore sounds like a cool word. I propose we all say unmore now.

I really should have used unmore words that post.

BradP:A potty is simply not the same thing as a toilet. How common the usage is with children doesn't have much to do with anything when writing to adults.

Along this line I was referring to the usage of "potholes" to describe any of various obstacles in completing a task. A pothole is not an obstacle.

Using quotes on "tummy" or "potty" is especially apt because you are quoting the term you use when speaking to children.

1) Most adults were children at one point, and most adults have had a part in raising children at one point. And that potties and toilets are different things is precisely the reason potty is a valid word that doesn't need to be quoted. Unless you prefer calling them "miniature toilet system for housebreaking toddlers (MTSFHT)".

2) This makes sense. However like I said in my previous post I really think quotations should be used depending on the target audience - if you are writing to the average Australian, for example, you wouldn't need those quotations. A 5 year old Australian child, you definitely would need them.

3)See 1, unless we're assuming the child means it in a different way than normal or if the child is talking about tummies in an abstract way. Or if the target audience is a really pretentious bunch of people who hate all non-latin roots in writing. Or if you're being scientific because when I say tummy (being a mature 18 year old) I generally mean the whole stomach/intestine area out of convenience, which hardly helps a scientist.

ceigered:

BradP:A potty is simply not the same thing as a toilet. How common the usage is with children doesn't have much to do with anything when writing to adults.

Along this line I was referring to the usage of "potholes" to describe any of various obstacles in completing a task. A pothole is not an obstacle.

Using quotes on "tummy" or "potty" is especially apt because you are quoting the term you use when speaking to children.

1) Most adults were children at one point, and most adults have had a part in raising children at one point. And that potties and toilets are different things is precisely the reason potty is a valid word that doesn't need to be quoted. Unless you prefer calling them "miniature toilet system for housebreaking toddlers (MTSFHT)".

I would not say that it "needs" to be quoted, but that it can be. Notice how I quoted "needs" even though it is a word I have used before, because you said it. People do this in correspondence. One person will say "This project is an irreparable disaster". And the other will say "Hey, I don't think it is an 'irreparable' disaster - we can fix it".

Because you are borrowing a word from a different context (adult to child) when speaking adult to adult, a quote is fine.

You say because potty and toilet are different things is precisely why quotes are unnecessary. Can you explain that?

OOOOOH! OK sorry BradP I completely misunderstood your points.

I thought you were arguing that you'd need the quotes because adults don't use a potty, not because you were quoting a child.

You say because potty and toilet are different things is precisely why quotes are unnecessary. Can you explain that?

I'm not sure what the logic was due to this post being posted very late at night but I think I was arguing that it goes to show that potty is a word in its own right and simply can't be regarded as a slang variant of toilet. But that's a pointless argument seeming I misunderstood you anyway

ceigered:OOOOOH! OK sorry BradP I completely misunderstood your points.

I thought you were arguing that you'd need the quotes because adults don't use a potty, not because you were quoting a child.

You say because potty and toilet are different things is precisely why quotes are unnecessary. Can you explain that?

I'm not sure what the logic was due to this post being posted very late at night but I think I was arguing that it goes to show that potty is a word in its own right and simply can't be regarded as a slang variant of toilet. But that's a pointless argument seeming I misunderstood you anyway

Phew! I'm glad we cleared that up. This issue on the proper quotation of "potty" is very important.

BradP:I am coming to think that you are just bound and determined to disagree with me.

Not at all. I don't know you beyond a very few opinions you've expressed on language issues on these forums, and I have no particular reason to want to agree or disagree with you on any point. But I see now that we are polar opposites on the quotations front. It bothers me that people in general (not a reference to you, just general) have such a poor idea of proper use of punctuation. That's what leads to those humorous signs, where restaurants advertise that they serve "food" and such. I think that perhaps it's because punctuation is not properly taught in schools today; people don't know when it's right to use it, so they make a guess and make up their own rules, and they tend to use it wrong. As I've said before, that can lead to unintentional humor at the least, misunderstandings and legal issues at most (I have seen right to bear arms arguments hinging on the use of a comma in the Bill of Rights!). It's an issue I feel fairly strongly about. Proper use of punctuation not only makes writing clearer, but it shows readers that the person writing the text took the time to do it right. No matter how erudite the thoughts are, if they are expressed in a mess of faulty punctuation, people will draw the wrong assumptions about the intellect of the writer.

You say you are not a prescriptivist

No, I'm not a prescriptivist. I'm conservative on language development (liberal on practically every other aspect of life, in case you were wondering). Because when people aren't clear about the meanings of words, misunderstandings can arise.

It's interesting you should bring up prescriptivism, however. If I make up a word or use a little-known term, I don't put it in quotes; I explain it. So I wouldn't say, "I'll be there in a minute, Grandma, I just need to log off of 'MSN'." I'd say, instead, "I need to log off of MSN, the online chat program I'm using"

In other words, I wouldn't use a word that my grandma isn't likely to understand without explaining. No quotes necessary. Use of quotes to mark out nonstandard language, strangely, makes you out to be MORE prescriptivist. I use the word MSN without judging whether it is worth being in the dictionary or not. I use potty, I use tongue-tied, I use pothole. I don't do anything to mark them out as being anything less than proper language; if I did so, it would make me seem like some kind of prescriptivist, who believed that any word used with something other than its dictionary meaning, or any word not found in the dictionary, needed to be marked out like some sort of Typhoid Mary! No need for quotes. Why would they need quotes? Are they not words? Would someone not understand? And the crucial point, if someone would not understand, would you not have the decency to explain the word to that person, rather than imprisoning it in quotes and expecting the person to figure out its meaning?

People put words in quotes that do not literally mean the word all the time.

Yes, people who make those humorous signs that end up in online photo galleries. People who don't know any better, or who just don't care enough to learn the rules.

The more a word or phrase diverges from the actual object, the more it warrants a quote. This is the very reason a quote creates irony when it fits the word perfectly!

If you really believe this, then I can't imagine what your writing looks like. If I had to mark out every bit of figurative speech with a quote, I'd wear out the quote key on my keyboard.

There's a good reason why we don't use quotes to separate figurative speech from straightforward meaning. It interferes with the flow of the writing, and it's an insult to the intelligence of the reader. It presumes that the reader is not intelligent enough to understand that when you talk about a pothole in the way of completing a report, you are not talking about a literal pothole, but an obstacle. I can't imagine taking one of Shakespeare's plays and putting quotes around every single word that was not used according to its literal meaning. It dumbs everything down to an incredible level, and it's completely unnecessary.

If you take a couple of deep breaths and read some texts consciously, newspapers, novels, things written by people who know what they're doing with the language, I think you'll find that people are not using quotes the way you suggest they should be used. I think you will not be finding quotes around figurative language to the extreme degree that you propose they should be used.

BradP:If this isn't "officially" acceptable,

That has to be your only use of quotes that is concurrent with common usage. English has no regulating body, so the "official"-ness of a word can only be de facto (<-Italics! What have you got against italics? They work in many places you want to put quotes around.)

it should be, because words are not the actual objects we speak of; they are representations with various degrees of appropriateness. The more a word or phrase diverges from the actual object, the more it warrants a quote. This is the very reason a quote creates irony when it fits the word perfectly!

Except "potty training" (<-quoting not emphasizing) is an appropriate, if the not the most appropriate word for that concept. I think the real reason quotes create irony, is because one is humoring another's insistent terminology.

-- Well, Bob-
-- Call me Bob, the Great and Mighty.
-- Alright, Bob, "the Great and Mighty."

-- Sit down, your server will be over in a minute.
-- Aren't you supposed to say welcome? And why didn't you smile, at [Some Place] the servers always smile... [A short rant later]
-- *gritting teeth* "Welcome" sir.

This is the most epic discussion of quote usage I've seen in my life.