Imagine that you're reading a book about fishing, and you see the following sentence:
For more details on the migration habits of these fish, see chapter 21, "Stickleback".
In standard English writing, I would say that the comma and quotation marks (or something similar like italicization, underlining, etc.) are important in the highlighted phrase.
It would be considered poor punctuation to write "chapter 21 Stickleback", where nothing except the capitalization of "Stickleback" indicates any separation between the phrases.
Based on my limited experience reading Swedish texts, my sense is that the form with no punctuation ("kapitel 21 Spigg") is quite common, and perhaps considered standard.
Is this an accurate impression?
Does the same apply to other Scandinavian langauages and Icelandic?
Thanks
For more details on the migration habits of these fish, see chapter 21, "Stickleback".
In standard English writing, I would say that the comma and quotation marks (or something similar like italicization, underlining, etc.) are important in the highlighted phrase.
It would be considered poor punctuation to write "chapter 21 Stickleback", where nothing except the capitalization of "Stickleback" indicates any separation between the phrases.
Based on my limited experience reading Swedish texts, my sense is that the form with no punctuation ("kapitel 21 Spigg") is quite common, and perhaps considered standard.
Is this an accurate impression?
Does the same apply to other Scandinavian langauages and Icelandic?
Thanks