Q:
Sometime in the past I was told that if an ellipsis (three periods indicating that some words were omitted) came at the end of a quoted sentence, one should add just a period without a space. But apparently that is incorrect in both British and American punctuation. Any idea about where I could have gotten that idea?

A:
My thanks for Champaign attorney Evan D. Coobs for this question. He may have seen the rule in an English grammar book, for that is the traditional method of indicating that words have been deleted from quoted material; See, for example, The Gregg Reference Manual, (Eighth Edition, 1996) by William A. Sabin, at pp. 70‑71. Sabin and others recommend that ellipses in quoted material be indicated by three spaced periods (that is, periods with a space be-fore and after each period) to indicate the omission. If the omitted material comes at the end of the sentence, a final mark of punctuation indicating the end of the sentence is added:

Original sentence: "The volley‑ball season ended last Friday with a win over arch‑enemy the Blue Hornets and was the most successful season ever."

Re‑write, with ellipsis: "The volley‑ball season ended last -

Friday . . . and was the most successful season ever.

Re‑write, with ellipsis ending the sentence: "The volley‑ball season ended last Friday . . .."

However, some critics call the use of full spaces between dots to indicate omitted material "another Victorian eccentricity." In his Elements of Typographic Style, Robert Bringhurst adds that the ellipsis takes up too much space. He recommends no spacing between the dots, just single spacing at both ends of the omitted material to separate it from the text. Thus, the above sentence would appear as "The volley‑ball season ... was the most successful season ever."

So choose the method you prefer. The use of three dots without spacing seems preferable because it saves type, space, and time. The fourth (final) punctuation (a dot, question mark, or exclamation point) would then indicate that the omitted language had ended the sentence. You can also substitute asterisks (**) instead of periods, but their use is less common.

FROM THE MAILBAG:

Jack Bales, Reference and Humanities Librarian at the University of Mary Washington Library in Fredericksburg, Maryland, asked about James Kilpatrick’s column on gerunds, which Bales said was way over his head. The grammatical rule requires that the noun or pronoun that precedes a gerund (a gerund being the ‑ing form of a verb used as a noun) must be in the possessive form. Kilpatrick called the following constructions "horrid examples," because the words it, people, and him are not in the possessive form (I have added the emphasis):

In-person voter fraud is extremely rare, and there is no evidence of it occurring in Indiana. (From The New York Times.)

The public would be served by sick people staying home and not spreading illness. (From an editorial in The Washington Post.)

McCain’s nomination would result from him being the last man standing. (From a column by Robert Novak.)

Kilpatrick considered the language, "horrid," for under the gerund rule the sentences should read:

In‑person voter fraud is extremely rare, and there is no evidence of its occurring in Indiana.

The public would be served by sick people’s staying away and not spreading illness.

McCain’s nomination would result from his being the last man standing.

However, the gerund construction has been so widely abandoned that readers will probably agree the original sentences look correct and the "corrected" sentences look strange. And given the impeccable reputation of the authors of the original sentences, you will agree that the gerund rule is widely ignored, even by our best writers.

Because wide and reputable usage always trumps grammatical rules, the gerund rule has become moribund. But it is based on reason and meaning. The gerund is merely a substitute for the noun or pronoun. In each sentence, had he used the noun form, the writer would have used the possessive form before it. In the first sentence, the writer could have used the noun occurrence instead of the gerund form occurring, and he would then have used the possessive form its ("its occurrence").

In the second sentence, had the writer substituted the noun absence for the gerund staying away, he would have chosen the possessive form: the sick people’s absence. And in the third sentence, McCain’s nomination would depend, not on him, but on his position as the last man standing, and Novak would have used the possessive case before the noun position.

Since the gerund rule is so widely breached and its absence confuses nobody, it seems an over‑reaction to object so strenuously to its loss. However, continue to observe the gerund rule if you know it, even though you are only momentarily holding a finger in the dike.

Gertrude Block is Lecturer Emerita at the University of Florida College of Law. Her book, ”Legal Writing Advice: Questions and Answers” (William S. Hein & Co., Inc.) was published in December 2004. Ms. Block is also author of “Effective Legal Writing”, 5th Edition (Foundation Press), with an accompanying instructor’s manual. She is co-author of the “Judicial Opinion Writing Manual” (published by the American Bar Association, 1991).  Send questions to the ISBA Bar News – Language Tips, Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Bar Center, Springfield, IL 62701, or mailto:block@law.ufl.edu.