quoting in fragments

   is often a needless distraction, as here: "Lowe also had been sick, but said he was now feeling 'better' " (Boston Globe). You should have some justification for quoting matter, especially in fragments. When the word or words being quoted are unusual or unexpected or particularly descriptive ("It was, he said, a 'lousy' performance") or are otherwise notable, the use of quotation marks is always unobjectionable and often advisable. But to set off a workaday word like better in the example above is unnecessary. Here is a sentence in which the second set of quotation marks is as unobjectionable as the first is fatuous: "Dietz agreed that loneliness was a 'feature' of Hinckley's life, but he added that studies have shown that 'loneliness is as common as the common cold in winter' " (Washington Post).

   A separate, grammatical danger of quoting in fragments is seen here: "Although he refused to be drawn on the future of the factory, Sir Kenneth said that the hope of finding a buyer 'was not out of the question' " (Times). Clearly Sir Kenneth would have said, "That is not out of the question," not "That was not out of the question." In quoted material, even when fragmentary, the tense must be preserved.

   A final problem is the tendency of some writers to put the words of one person into the mouths of many, as here: "Witnesses at the scene said that there was 'a tremendous bang and then all hell broke loose' " (Guardian). The comment should be paraphrased or attributed to just one witness.