Punctuation Help Please

Jeff N. · Nov 14, 2020

I have a character speaking. They say:
I assure you it was not intentional
I need to punctuate that. The first part is easy. There is a period at the end and quote marks around it:
"I assure you it was not intentional."

Then it gets tougher.
"I" is a subject
"assure" is a verb
"you" is a direct object
"it" is a subject
"was" is a verb
"intentional" is a direct object
"not" is an adjective

So, this is two sentences. I know you can shove two closely related sentences together with a semicolon between them. My gut said it should be:
"I assure you; it was not intentional."
When I ran that through a grammar checker, it said, "avoid semicolons inside dialog."
I jumped on the internet and spent a couple hours researching it. About two thirds of the web sites said to use a comma making it:
"I assure you, it was not intentional."
That looks like a comma splice to me.
The other third of web sites seem to say to run it all together with no punctuation at all:
"I assure you it was not intentional."
I'm not sure it is right putting two independent sentences together with nothing between them.

I would like an answer. More important--I would really like an explanation. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

neandermagnon · Nov 14, 2020

I'm pretty sure that what you have there is just one sentence, not two. Granted it technically could be two independent clauses but you can join independent clauses with words like "that, "and", "but" etc to make them one sentence. But often you can remove the "that" without changing the meaning, so it's still one sentence.

I assure you that it was not intentional.

I assure you it was not intentional.

ChaseJxyz · Nov 14, 2020

Hi, welcome to the forum! I'm a native English speaker so a lot of what I know about grammar is from decades of use, not formal education. So I don't think of things like "direct objects" and stuff like that.

How I would write it would be "I assure you, it was not intentional." A sentence is a whole thought. "The cat caught a mouse." "The store was closed" etc. "I assure you." is a sentence, if we're going 100% by what is grammatically allowed/possible, but in how people actually use language, you're not not really going to see that. "I assure you" is directly linked to "it was not intentional." They're part of the same thought, they really need to be together. You COULD do it with a semicolon, but that works better for sentences that could still mostly function as just sentences. Commas are way more common and it's better to use them over semicolons in most situations.

Maryn · Nov 14, 2020

I'm pretty good at punctuation--but not as good as some other people who'll arrive in due time.

I'd be inclined to have no comma or other punctuation. If that doesn't scan right to your reader's eye, a comma after you. Definitely not a semicolon.

To me, it was not intentional, while capable of being a complete sentence/independent clause, does not fulfill the purpose of an independent clause in this sentence.

The rule is, if you have two independent clauses, they can be two separate sentences or be together with a comma and a joining conjunction and still make sense both ways, i.e.,

Maryn got online. She went to AW.
Maryn got online, and she went to AW.

That makes sense, either way, right. But can you say the same for this?

I assure you. It was not intentional.
I assure you, and it was not intentional.

I'm guessing someone with more detailed knowledge knows of a rule about things promised, assured, or guaranteed being some sort of object in their role within the sentence, but that won't be me.

Maryn, hoping this helped at lease a tiny bit

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty good at punctuation--but not as good as some other people who'll arrive in due time.

I'd be inclined to have no comma or other punctuation. If that doesn't scan right to your reader's eye, a comma after you. Definitely not a semicolon.

To me, it was not intentional, while capable of being a complete sentence/independent clause, does not fulfill the purpose of an independent clause in this sentence.

The rule is, if you have two independent clauses, they can be two separate sentences or be together with a comma and a joining conjunction and still make sense both ways, i.e.,

Maryn got online. She went to AW.
Maryn got online, and she went to AW.

That makes sense, either way, right. But can you say the same for this?

I assure you. It was not intentional.
I assure you, and it was not intentional.

I'm guessing someone with more detailed knowledge knows of a rule about things promised, assured, or guaranteed being some sort of object in their role within the sentence, but that won't be me.

Maryn, hoping this helped at lease a tiny bit

Maryn · Nov 14, 2020

(Wow, a post so nice it posted twice!)

angeliz2k · Nov 16, 2020

JEN.. said:
I have a character speaking. They say:
I assure you it was not intentional
I need to punctuate that. The first part is easy. There is a period at the end and quote marks around it:
"I assure you it was not intentional."

Then it gets tougher.
"I" is a subject
"assure" is a verb
"you" is a direct object
"it" is a subject
"was" is a verb
"intentional" is a direct object
"not" is an adjective

So, this is two sentences. I know you can shove two closely related sentences together with a semicolon between them. My gut said it should be:
"I assure you; it was not intentional."
When I ran that through a grammar checker, it said, "avoid semicolons inside dialog."
I jumped on the internet and spent a couple hours researching it. About two thirds of the web sites said to use a comma making it:
"I assure you, it was not intentional."
That looks like a comma splice to me.
The other third of web sites seem to say to run it all together with no punctuation at all:
"I assure you it was not intentional."
I'm not sure it is right putting two independent sentences together with nothing between them.

I would like an answer. More important--I would really like an explanation. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

I think you're misreading the structure of the sentence here; these aren't two independent clauses.

There is an implied "that" in between "I assure you" and "it was not intentional". In isolation, yes, they could both be independent clauses, but then you lose the meaning of the sentence. "I assure you" doesn't really stand on its own; it needs an object (you assure someone "of/that" something, you don't just assure them, generally speaking). Here, "it was not intentional" acts as the object for "I assure you" (I don't think it's a prepositional phrase, but I'm not sure what the technical term is). What am "I" assuring "you" of? That "it was not intentional." In this case, no comma is needed.

There's an alternative way of looking at it: "I assure you" could be modifying "it was not intentional." The emphasis is on it not being intentional, and the "I assure you" is really just emphasis. Here, you have one independent clause ("it was not intentional") and one modifying phrase ("I assure you"). You would need a comma to set off the modifying phrase.

There are very slight shades of meaning between these two readings of the sentence, and in the grand scheme of things it probably won't make much difference to a reader. I just like looking at sentence structure. I had never done sentence diagramming before college, and it really opened my eyes to thinking about how sentences go together and why we punctuate them the way we do (it's not to show where we pause but to indicate the structure of the sentence).

The semicolon is definitely out.

Fallen · Nov 18, 2020

angeliz2k said:
(I don't think it's a prepositional phrase, but I'm not sure what the technical term is).

That-clause?

We use a noun + that-clause to express opinions and feelings, often about certainty and possibility. We also use that with reporting nouns. Some nouns commonly used in this way are belief, fact, hope, idea, possibility, suggestion, statement, claim, comment, argument:

He is also having intensive treatment in the hope that he will be able to train on Friday.

Dutch police are investigating the possibility that a bomb was planted on the jet.

But basically with some that-clauses, you can omit where 'that' is implied without using a comma.

He is also having intensive treatment in the hope that he will be able to train on Friday. > He is also having intensive treatment in the hope he will be able to train on Friday.

I assure you that it's not intenional > I assure you it's not intentional.

BrumBall · Nov 21, 2020

I'm not great on the technicalities but as an English speaking reader I would not have a problem with, "I assure you it was not intentional."

Maybe it's down to how your character says the sentence.

"I assure you it was not intentional," sounds laidback as if the speaker is simply stating a fact. Could also go with, "wasn't intentional," to sound less formal if that fits the character or situation.

"I assure you; it was not intentional," or "I assure you, it was not intentional," with the pause in the middle of the sentence, sounds more forceful. The speaker really wants the listener to know that it was not intentional.

For extra drama you could break the sentence up completely. "I assure you." She took his hand and looked deep into his eyes, searching for any hint of forgiveness. "It was not intentional." This one isn't grammatically correct at all, but your readers will understand.

Thornbird · Nov 21, 2020

I keyed this into three of my grammar checkers. Each one stated you could be correct with a comma, or without. I think if you are stating a fact, it probably doesn't need a comma.

Maryn · Nov 21, 2020

I put a lot more faith in my own knowledge of English as a native speaker with a reasonable knowledge of grammar than in any grammar checker, for the record. A full third of my three grammar checkers' suggestions are flat-out wrong on my manuscripts, and I can cite chapter and verse on why.

I still run them before I submit, but they rarely catch anything that's a mistake rather than a typo.

Maryn, not bragging, just not impressed with grammar checkers, really

talktidy · Nov 23, 2020

I am comma-happy, but I think that sentence does not require a comma.

Chase · Nov 23, 2020

Most above recommending no comma are correct. We should never replace an unwanted "that" with a comma.

If a writer feels a pause is absolutely necessary, inserting a random comma doesn't really work, because commas are structural markers where there's sometimes a pause but sometimes there isn't a pause.

In the case where nothing will do except to force a pause, BrumBall's suggestion to interrupt the sentence with a sentence of attribution (She took his hand.) works well. A direct attributive (he said, she said,) also inserts a beat. Or consider a dash or ellipses to show the speaker hesitates:

"I assure you . . . it was not intentional."
"I assure you—it was not intentional."

Dann the dog · Nov 25, 2020

My rule of the thumb about semicolons:

Semicolon can be used when the sentence keeps its meaning when you removes what follows it. It is indeed rare to see it warranted in a dialogue, tought less so in a lenghty monologue.

For the comma or no comma, I did not have an opinion, but upon reading this thread, I'll keep in mind to never put a comma if you can have "that" in its place. It seems like a solid and logical rule.

Bufty · Nov 25, 2020

Hi, Dann the dog. :welcome:

I hope I understand what you mean here.

I don't follow why the first independent and grammatically complete clause would change its meaning on removal of the semicolon. I also don't follow why retention of its meaning automatically means the use of the semicolon and whatever follows it is correct?

Better to understand the purpose of a semicolon.

Dann the dog said:
My rule of the thumb about semicolons:

Semicolon can be used when the sentence keeps its meaning when you removes what follows it...

Chase · Nov 25, 2020

Bufty said:
I hope I understand what you mean here.

I share Bufty's welcome and am also wondering what's being said in the following:

Dann the dog said:
My rule of the thumb about semicolons:

Semicolon can be used when the sentence keeps its meaning when you removes what follows it. It is indeed rare to see it warranted in a dialogue, tought less so in a lenghty monologue.

For the comma or no comma, I did not have an opinion, but upon reading this thread, I'll keep in mind to never put a comma if you can have "that" in its place. It seems like a solid and logical rule.

For instance, the main* use of semicolons is to separate two strongly linked independent clauses without coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. Most not liking them for narrative or even dialog usually are fuzzy about such criteria.
* Another use involves items in a series with other necessary commas.

About commas, in my opinion, this isn't my meaning at all. I'd be disappointed if readers took my explanation to mean "never put a comma if you can have 'that' in its place."

What I mean to say is: Under no circumstance should we ever put a comma in place of an unnecessary or unwanted "that."

Punctuation Help Please

Jeff N.

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!

ChaseJxyz

Writes 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 and 🏳️‍⚧️🌕🐺 accessories

Maryn

At Sea

Maryn

At Sea

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty

Fallen

Stood at the coalface

BrumBall

Keep Right On

Thornbird

Maryn

At Sea

talktidy

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Dann the dog

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism