Comma, Si! Or Comma, No!

The pierced rowdies sound like a fun crowd, but I vote with the tea sippers and MacAllister on this one. Comma, si.

But if I see colonies of commas breeding in my ms, I stomp out the young lest they grow up to be semicolons. *shudder*

I'm with the bone-china and white-gloves crowd on the comma question, though not on questions of fashion.

And before anyone asks, here's another thing about commas. If you write a note or an e-mail and substitute "Hi" or "Hello" for a more traditional salutation, do it like this:

Hi, Maryn.

or

Hello, Maryn.

That comma suffers from neglect these days. I don't know why.

Sorry, I tried wearing the white gloves, but they get dirty so easily . . .

Shouldn't there be a comma in the sentence, "Did, too!"

Maryn said:

The no comma crowd (a rowdy bunch with many piercings and a disregard for rules) says that if the speaker would not pause even slightly, the addition of the comma changes the delivery, if not the meaning.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Chalk one up for the rowdy rebels, Maryn. The comma's purpose, above all, is to provide clarity to the reader -- to give the reader a visual cue to pause before continuing. When you're using a comma in dialogue, it's sole purpose (in my humble opinion, of course) is to tell the reader when the speaker pauses.

Maryn said:

The include-a-comma camp (a pleasant group with a liking for tea in bone china cups and white gloves) reasons that how the sentence is delivered should not and does not affect whether the comma belongs there.

The no comma crowd (a rowdy bunch with many piercings and a disregard for rules) says that if the speaker would not pause even slightly, the addition of the comma changes the delivery, if not the meaning.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I'm not too sure what crowd I belong too - I suspect I twiddle my piercings with my gloved hands - but my gut feel (always a worry) is to put a comma in if the speaker pauses.

I don't think the pause changes the meaning, just the delivery.

But I could be convinced otherwise. You've now got me sitting here muttering to myself ("No, I don't" "NoIdon't" "No I don't"). Lucky my work colleagues have gone home for the day...

The rebuffed, yet lowly comma, anon.

My editor swears that I write pages, then stand back and hurl buckets of commas at them!

I am a writer. I am also a public speaker, with many more years of public speaking experience than writing experience.

(Follow along for just a moment, please!)

As a public speaker, the comma is extremely valuable to me as a speaking tool. It also is my primary BREATHING tool. I admit this openly, and publicly before you even now.

What I am learning, however, is that the comma can create an unnecessary lapse in the flow of reading. The argument comes to the bar as to whether or not the brain automatically picks up on the "implied" comma. In a sentence such as this, for instance, the comma requires hesitation. Yet, the required hesitiation is a substance for the writer, according to his/her speech patterns. Forcing a reader into your speaking habits can be a very dangerous thing.

The theory is that the brain of the reader will automatically insert into the reading those commas, or pauses, that the reader would naturally use as a matter of their own speaking patterns. This, according to the theory at least, privatizes the reading in a comfortable manner for the reader--even in those cases where it is inappropriate to do so. Incorrect grammer on the part of the writer is one thing. But, many readers think and read in incorrect grammer. And, to honor the erstwhile perambulations of my editor, the reader is the final judge.

It's just an interesting theory that I think may be worth some discussion. Regardless, I know that I have allowed colonies to thrive where the land would best be left barren. It is, as am I, a work in progress.

Hmm. I find myself squarely in the middle. (I'll have my tea in a nice big mug, thanks.)

Personally, I'd use the commas. But I don't think dropping the commas is wrong, just a question of style.

Of course, I still don't understand the unreasonable bias against the semicolon...

Comma, si. I don't know how or why people started thinking commas are optional in cases like that and in cases of when someone is addressing another person by name.

I'll assume a (padded) seat on the fence.

As a matter of strict correctness the comma arguably belongs there, but to preserve the desired effect of a rapid-fire, conflicted exchange of dialogue, I'd leave it out.

A well-trained reader (we deserve nothing less!) will always pause for a comma, and that's clearly inappropriate in this example.

Commas

The commas belong, so put them in and leave them there. A well-trained reader leaves out commas where they don't belong, and puts them in where they do belong, even if the writer screws it up.

If you want to show rapid-fire talk, forget about trying to break the comma rule. It doesn't work, it just makes most reader wonder why the writer hasn't learned grammar.

kybudman said:

My editor swears that I write pages, then stand back and hurl buckets of commas at them!

I am a writer. I am also a public speaker, with many more years of public speaking experience than writing experience.

(Follow along for just a moment, please!)

As a public speaker, the comma is extremely valuable to me as a speaking tool. It also is my primary BREATHING tool. I admit this openly, and publicly before you even now.

What I am learning, however, is that the comma can create an unnecessary lapse in the flow of reading. The argument comes to the bar as to whether or not the brain automatically picks up on the "implied" comma. In a sentence such as this, for instance, the comma requires hesitation. Yet, the required hesitiation is a substance for the writer, according to his/her speech patterns. Forcing a reader into your speaking habits can be a very dangerous thing.

The theory is that the brain of the reader will automatically insert into the reading those commas, or pauses, that the reader would naturally use as a matter of their own speaking patterns. This, according to the theory at least, privatizes the reading in a comfortable manner for the reader--even in those cases where it is inappropriate to do so. Incorrect grammer on the part of the writer is one thing. But, many readers think and read in incorrect grammer. And, to honor the erstwhile perambulations of my editor, the reader is the final judge.

It's just an interesting theory that I think may be worth some discussion. Regardless, I know that I have allowed colonies to thrive where the land would best be left barren. It is, as am I, a work in progress.

Click to expand...

I believe you're thinking about commas in a horrible manner. Commas certain can make for pauses, but cintrary to what many believe, this is not the prime reasoin commas are or are not used. It's a terrible mistake to think of commas as reasons for pauses, or as speech patterns.

Commas are placed in senetnces for grammatical reasons, and trying to read them as pauses, or as lack of pauses, is a horrible mistake.

Now, when you can use correct grammar in a manner that puts a pause where you want it, but this is always secondary to teh real use of a comma.

It's not about forcing readers into your speech patterns. This has zero to do with it. What you hear as pauses are not pauses in teh usualy context, such as in speech, they're pauses of separation.

It's simply a huge mistake to even think of commas as part of speeh patterns. They are not. I don't care how we differ in speech patterns, we'd darned well better agree on grammar, on what the separate parts of a sentence are, and why a comma should be placed where it is. Speech patterns and pauses are NOT the reasons commas are used in a given place.

From Annie Get Your Gun:

"Anything you can do, I can do better."
"I can do any thing better than you."
"No you can't."
"Yes I can."
"No you can't."
"Yes I can."
"No you can't."
"Yes I can, yes I can."

Good enough for Irving Berlin, good enough for me.

Is this the right room for an argument?

"Is this the right room for an argument?"

"Yes, it is."

I don't think there's much argument about that one.

However, Monty Python fans will also fondly recall the later exchanges, including:

Man: Look, this isn't an argument.

Mr Barnard: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Mr Barnard: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Those with good aural memories (or recordings) know exactly how this argument flows.

The fact is, the expressions "No it isn't" or "Yes it is" without commas are theoretically meaningless; but everyone knows what they mean. And with dialogue, grammatical propriety is not on the agenda - all bets are off.

I've jumped off the fence. No commas for me in those circumstances.

Yes they do.

Look, this isn't an argument.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't, it's just a contradiction.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.

Sorry, Sage, but all those extra commas look like squashed mozzies on the page, they do make most readers pause where no pause is intended by the writer (whose paramount aim is communication), and they suck the life out of a dynamic exchange.

I want the comma. Incorrect usage narks me. But that's just me, you see.

I know what's meant, but the missing comma just distracts and annoys me, interfering with my enjoyment of the literature.

If you KNOW it's meant to be there, you are then entitled to OMIT it to achieve the desired effect.

The Monty Python example includes an incorrect use of comma in other circumstances (a run-on sentence). To wit: "No it isn't, it's just contradiction".

Therefore, I'd rule it out as evidence.

pianoman5 said:

they suck the life out of a dynamic exchange.

Click to expand...

For me, it's the opposite: the missing commas bug me like a cellphone ringing in the theatre.

Why not allow for a difference of opinion?

I agree w/ Poet.

When I see a sentence that lacks the commas where they are supposed to be, I find it distracting.

I also don't find "Yes, it is" and "No, it isn't" to be very dynamic exchanges, anyway. If you want to add emphasis, I suppose one could use exclamation points or dashes.

"Yes! It is!"
"No--it isn't!"

Shwebb said:

I agree w/ Poet.

When I see a sentence that lacks the commas where they are supposed to be, I find it distracting.

I also don't find "Yes, it is" and "No, it isn't" to be very dynamic exchanges, anyway. If you want to add emphasis, I suppose one could use exclamation points or dashes.

"Yes! It is!"
"No--it isn't!"

Click to expand...

The problem here is that you're adding pauses -- extreme pauses -- when the original intent ("Yes it is!") was no pauses at all.

You know what you should do in this case? Write the dialogue as you see fit. When it gets sold to a publisher, let the publisher's copy editor make the final call.

Barring that, pull out your trusty ol' copy of CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE and look up what it recommends for comma usage in dialogue. (I've got it upstairs; I'll look it up later this morning, if someone here doesn't beat me to the punch.)

Okay, kids. Here's the verdict, from THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE, 15th Edition (6.29): ((note that the examples are from CHICAGO as well))

"Yes," "no," and the like: A comma usually follows yes, no, well, and the like, at the beginning of a sentence if a slight pause is intended.

Yes, I admit that Benson's plan has gained a following.

No, that item is not on the agenda.

Well then, we shall have to take a vote.

but

No no no!

Maryn said:

Operative phrase: "if a slight pause is intended." It seems, in the example dialogue, that no pause is intended.

Click to expand...

Exactamundo.