Comma mechanics

Oh, sorry, I can't help you. I'm a comma mechanic. I thought you had a broken comma.

Gynn said:

"No ma'am!" Dave said with a little grin. "But we need to get going!"

or would it be

"No, ma'am!" Dave said, with a little grin. "But, we need to get going!"

Click to expand...

I think the first example reads better. That said, it may be the wrong way but I find it easier.

kenthepen said:

Oh, sorry, I can't help you. I'm a comma mechanic. I thought you had a broken comma.

Click to expand...

Okay, I was also looking for an answer to the OP's question, but this was!

Gynn said:

Punctuation can be the pits! Would you guys please help me figure this out? I'm trying to find the proper usage (or non-usage) of commas in the following example:

"No ma'am!" Dave said with a little grin. "But we need to get going!"

or would it be

"No, ma'am!" Dave said, with a little grin. "But, we need to get going!"

Thanks for any input!

Click to expand...

Here's my take on it.

"No, ma'am!" Dave said with a little grin. "But we need to get going!"

I think the comma before with is one of those that can go either way. You only put a comma after but if you want to emphasize a pause in his speech.

It's: "No, (with a comma as ma'am is a direct address) ma'am!" Dave said (no comma because with is a preposition - think of them as connector words) with a little grin. "But (no comma) we need to get going!"

I think both of these are fine:

"No ma'am!" ...
"No, ma'am!" ...

where the omitted comma in the first option is less correct, but fine if you take a minimalist approach to comma use.

However, I think this is a lot more correct:

... "But we need to get going."

than:

... "But, we need to get going."

In spoken language, you might pause after "but", but I don't think it's correct to put a comma there. (Commas are my nemeses, btw; my advice is not necessarily to be trusted. Lots of hand-waving going on here.)

Also, I believe this is correct too:

"No, ma'am," Dave said with a little grin, "but we need to get going."

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't even see the one after "Dave said"! Yes, leave that one out too.

I will answer for proper American grammar.

"No, ma'am," David said with a little grin, "but we need to get going."

Architectus said:

I will answer for proper American grammar.

"No, ma'am," David said with a little grin, "but we need to get going."

Click to expand...

hahahaha! That's right. He caught the first exclamation point.

Gynn said:

"No ma'am!" Dave said with a little grin. "But we need to get going!"

Click to expand...

That one is mostly correct; you do need a comma after 'no.'

In the second example, you could put a comma after 'said' if for some reason you truly needed a pause there. But in that particular example, it doesn't seem necessary. And definitely no comma after 'but,' ever.

There's no reason for the comma because it's not a separate action requiring its own clause--he's speaking and grinning at the same time.

"No ma'am" is a quick phrase. It's not halting. Unless it's part of a longer string of words -- like, "No, ma'am, these boots are not for sale" -- then I think it would always be without a comma. "No ma'am!" is correct.

I think it really depends on what effect you're going for. Commas are especially a multi-use tool in dialogue-- it's not just what's 'correct', it's what gives the effect you want. "But we need to get going" isn't said the same way as "But, we need to get going." Same with "No ma'am" and "No, ma'am." Style isn't always about what's the 'correct' usage (though it's important to know correct usages before you start messing with them!). "I'd love to go to your place and have coffee" vs. "I'd love to go to your place and, have coffee." The "misplaced" comma in the second version isn't a mistake...

Use the comma. "ma'am" is a substitute for the character's name, which means it takes a comma. You would never write "No Ruth!", so you shouldn't write "No ma'am."

I'd also say drop the exclamation point.

Architectus said:

I will answer for proper American grammar.

"No, ma'am," David said with a little grin, "but we need to get going."

Click to expand...

Yes.

If you wanted to keep the emphasis in, you could opt for:

"No, ma'am," David said with a little grin, "but we need to get going!"

Comma after no.

Also, the exclamation points don't work. I think the grin shows he's joking around (if, indeed, that is your intent).

"No ma'am" means there is no ma'am. I don't think that's the meaning you want.

Gynn said:

"Time for Matlock," Dave said walking towards the couch.

Seems awkward without the comma, but that could just be my reading. Thanks again for all the help!

Click to expand...

Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive clause

"Time for Matlock," Dave said, walking toward the couch.

Because "walking toward the couch" is a non-restrictive clause. Removing it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

Yup, takes a comma like Midian said.