3

I was surprised to see that normal punctuation rules apply after a closing em dash (raya de cierre). For example:

Esperaba a Emilio —un gran amigo—, que, lamentablemente, no vino.

There's a comma after the dash [—,], which would be incorrect in English.

However, I'm doing a typographic revision of a book in English and Spanish, and have noticed that the author doesn't apply that rule with parentheses. For example:

Si desea más información sobre este tema (la bibliografía es bastante extensa —incluso en español), deberá acudir a otras fuentes.

Is that second example an error? Should it be "... en español—), deberá ..." Or does the rule about punctuation not apply for a closing parentheses?

  • 1
    Si tras la raya de cierre ha de aparecer algún signo de puntuación, este se escribirá sin blanco de separación con respecto a este signo (DPD, p. 556). So the presence of a punctuation symbol after the dash is contemplated. – guillem Jun 20 '16 at 18:00
3

The Diccionario panhispánico de dudas has an article on dashes (which, from your example, I see you've already read). Usage of em dashes in Spanish is pretty much restricted to incisos (parentheticals) and for punctuating interventions in a dialogue or quotation. When it is used to set off a parenthetical, stops/periods, parentheses, question/exclamation marks or any other punctuation mark are still necessary:

La raya de cierre en los incisos no se suprime aunque detrás de ella deba aparecer un punto o cualquier otro signo de puntuación:

Esperaba a Emilio —un gran amigo—. Lamentablemente, no vino.

Esperaba a Emilio —un gran amigo—, que, lamentablemente, no vino.

From DPD; emphasis added.

Your sentence should read:

Si desea más información sobre este tema (la bibliografía es bastante extensa —incluso en español—), deberá acudir a otras fuentes.

Bottom line: parentheses are no exception.

| improve this answer | |
  • Yes, you're right. I did read it. (And stole the examples in order to maintain confidentiality with the text I'm proofreading!) Unless I missed it, they didn't address the parentheses. But I had doubts because the author was consistent in all other similar contexts --but not with parentheses. Also, being my second language, I wasn't sure. Thanks! – Matt Jun 20 '16 at 21:33
  • @Matt Maybe he didn't add the second dash when using parentheses because that's not something you see too often (i.e. a parenthetical inside another parenthetical). I have to admit I've never seen this written, but I guess if parentheses were an exception RAE would have pointed that out. – Yay Jun 20 '16 at 21:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.