Punctuation at end of paragraph not working well in checks

Question

We like our basic checks. Use them regularly.

There is one issue where PT does not cope with the realities of real languages: We get far too many false errors about “punctuation missing at end of paragraph”. We get this every time where quotations are involved.

Consider this: “This German sentence has correct punctuation and correct quotation marks.” (For drafting purposes we can use the ugly ones from the keyboard.) And: “Cette phrase française a une ponctuation et des guillemets corrects !” But this element " is not valid “in isolation”.

So it is valid in several languages to have the punctuation inside quotation marks. I have not found, how to tell PT to accept this. The basic check “punctuation” is far too important to just “validate anything” or to “deny for entire chapters”. Typing errrors do happen, also in punctuation, and we want to catch those, Getting too many false errors would dull our alertness.

So if there is a setting that I have missed, please advise. What is puzzling to me as user, is that " are listed as “punctuation” in the punctuation-inventory window and then as “quotation element” in the quotation-rules window. If " are really considered a punctuation-item, why do I not see the combination ." listed as something that I can validate?

This leads to another issue which might be the real problem: PT can very finely distinguish punctuation according to word-inital, word-final, word-medial, isolated etc. but combinations of punctuation-elements are so much not-considered that they are listed as “isolated”. For checking real languages, the inter-play of punctuation elements (clusters) is important and should be programmed.

If this were done, then I could validate common needed combinations like ." and the “end of paragraph problem” would be indirectly solved, I believe.

You might feel my frustration. But this is not a complaint, rather a cry for help. Here is a mother asking for help for her beloved child (language) who has got her eyes at the back of her head and the school system does not allow her to sit facing the back of the class.

edit: I have a sense of déjà-vu. Did I submit a similar question once before, a few years ago? Or have I just quietly suffered this by myself? I always do searches before I create a new thread but could not find this issue. If there is an answer already, please do not be angry and please send the link.

Answer 1

Tim:

So it is valid in several languages to have the punctuation inside quotation marks. I have not found, how to tell PT to accept this.

When you are reviewing the Punctuation inventory you should check the box (on the right) for Show Sequences. This will change the list to show all sequences of punctuation. It is worth the time it takes to review this list. The basic check uses the list in the way you save it. So, if you have selected Show Sequences, the check will be done with sequences.

Comments

I’ve got a similar problem. I know that we did all our checks successfully in PT 7, but when I now check a (new) book in 9.1/9.2 I get ‘Punctuation missing at end of paragraph’ for every paragraph, even though I have approved everything in the Punctuation inventory and there clearly is a punctuation mark. For me this relates to the Khmer script.
I also get ‘Opening quote found without matching closing’ even though there clearly is a closing quote just a few characters further on and I don’t get any ‘Unmatched pairs of punctuation’.

---

anon015155:

I get ‘Punctuation missing at end of paragraph’ for every paragraph,

Paratext has introduced more inventories to help check punctuation. One of these is the Markers missing final punctuation inventory. You should check the options on that inventory and review what punctuation you are using at the end of your paragraph markers.
Checking quotations is extremely complicated. We did a Paratext Hour session on this last week. You can see the session at: EMDC Online | Providing you with interactive learning experiences to provide you with quality ministry content. (Note, you must register for EMDC to be able to view the archives).

---

Thanks, anon848905, that helped with the punctuation. The important ones were already checked in the inventory, so I think while PT retained that info in the upgrades, it was not applied until that list was opened and okayed again? As for the quotations, I think I’ll change the way I use quotes, that should solve that problem.

---

I just ran into the opposite problem: a paragraph missing final punctuation was not flagged by the punctuation check. Nor is it listed in the checklist “Markers missing final punctuation”, not even when I checck "Show all final punctuation.
Here is the sequence in question, unformatted:
\q1 … ngwabha bhomu\x - \xo 4.4 \xt Tɛg 8.3\x*»
\m
\v 5 Wɨmbombiã…
The \q1 paragraph ends with a crossref., then a closing quotation mark; it is followed by \m.
In the “Markers missing final punctuation” options, the sequence “q1/m” is not listed as a sequence to ignore.
So why does PT not list this error? Could it be because of the full stops within the crossreference?

Paulus+Kieviet

---

Paulus+Kieviet - good question. The Markers missing final punctuation is probably the inventory with the most options and they can interact in strange ways. One of the options is “Markers that Start New Sentence”. In your case, the \m marker is not considered a marker that starts a new sentence (by definition is is a continuation of the previous paragraph) and so does not require that the preceding \q1 end in punctuation. If you add m to the list of markers that start a new sentence then the check should report the error.

Answer 2

Thank you @anon848905 for two helpful answers. I had missed those tiny boxes underneath those larger valid/invalid buttons. I was amazed that my brain had hidden those from me, but it seems to be a side-effect from the very dense display of PT. Not a complaint, not an excuse, my fault.

Of course I take the time to check and evaluate all sequences, that is what we want. The context is always muchly important and real language brings up amazing combinations…

In the markers missing final punctuation inventory, the tiny box was also unchecked by default and without “Show All Final Punctuation” the window does not even make any sense for our project. So I clicked it very firmly on my screen and secured it with a dab of clear nail polish.

Now, we are better prepared. But I still got some unexpected messages, where I had confirmed the valid sequences and the entire “markers final” list.

I found out that just by running the basic checks, having confirmed and OKed our inventories brought up more false errors.

And when I go into the inventories again, I see more items with fresh “?”. So it seems that the basic checks and inventories influence each other and user needs to run a few cycles to make it all wonderful. No problem, I can live with that for now. Will use it for some time and see how it fits our language patterns.

I am now very happy and could mark my question as solved. But another user (hi @anon015155 ) has added his questions, so I leave it to him to mark when he is also satisfied.