They make it perfectly clear and plain, he informed the House, that 'Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited by him, rather as a colleague than as a mere Under-Secretary, to register my will.'–Times.
The change from him to my would be quite legitimate if the first quotation mark stood before rather instead of where it does; as it stands, it is absurd.
It is long since he partook of the Holy Communion, though there was an Easterday, of which he writes, when 'he might have remained quietly in (his) corner during the office, if...'.–Times.
The (his) is evidently bracketed to show that it is substituted for the original writer's my. This is very conscientious; but it follows that either the same should have been done for he, or the quotation mark should be after he.
We began this section by saying that quotation marks should be used only when necessary. A question that affects the decision to some extent is the difference between direct, indirect, and half-and-half quotation. We can say (1) He said 'I will go'. (2) He said he would go. (3) He said 'he would go'. The first variety is often necessary for the sake of vividness. The third is occasionally justified when, though there is no occasion for vividness, there is some turn of phrase that it is important for the reader to recognize as actually originating, not with the writer, but with the person quoted; otherwise, that variety is to be carefully avoided; how disagreeable it is will appear in the example below. For ordinary purposes the second variety, which involves no quotation marks, is the best.
He then followed my example, declared he never felt more refreshed in his life, and, giving a bound, said,' he would go and look after his horses.'–Borrow.
Further, there may be quotation, not of other people's words, but of one's own thoughts. In this case the method prevailing at present is that exemplified in the Times extract below. Taken by itself, there is no objection to it. We point out, however, that it is irreconcilable with the principles
