Dialogue punctuation: commas vs semi-colons

[Abernovo]

You'll 'have to ask for a source'?

The Chicago Manual of Style, among others.

That said, and despite my defending the four-dot ellipsis, I try not to use them. They may be technically correct, but I find them inelegant and ungainly.

 

[Ursa major]

Note that one can have an exclamation mark or question mark followed by speech attribution:

"Why are you here?" he asked.

"Get that gun cleaned!" the Sergeant barked.
​

although the latter is harder to use with a simple 'said'.

 

[Bowler1]

I'm going to be last in again....

Clarity for the reader is important as well. Mixing actions and speech is confusing. We do the hard work so the reader does not have to.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Hex's point—that I disagree with—is that ellipses denotes a closed clause.

"He said..." Harry facial expression changed to that of disgust before continuing "... that he prefers Dr Pepper over Coke."

I'll have to ask for a source for that.

Okay, so referencing the Chicago Manual of Style here - 13.50:

Ellipsis points are normally not used before the first word of a quotation, even if the beginning of the original sentence has been omitted;

So if you are to use an ellipsis to omit part of the dialogue, the ellipsis shouldn't be repeated when the dialogue continues. You're not omitting it twice, and it most certainly does not replace proper punctuation - 13.48:

They must always appear together on the same line (through the use of nonbreaking spaces, available in most software applications), along with any following punctuation

In regards to the four dots:

Chicago Manual of Style, 13.51:

A period is added before an ellipsis to indicate the omission of the end of a sentence, unless the sentence is deliberately incomplete (see 13.53). Similarly, a period at the end of a sentence in the original is retained before an ellipsis indicating the omission of material immediately following the period. What precedes and, normally, what follows the four dots should be grammatically complete sentences as quoted, even if part of either sentence has been omitted. A complete passage from Emerson's essay "Politics" reads:

The spirit of our American radicalism is destructive and aimless: it is not loving; it has no ulterior and divine ends; but is destructive only out of hatred and selfishness. On the other side, the conservative party, composed of the most moderate, able, and cultivated part of the population, is timid, and merely defensive of property. It vindicates no right, it aspires to no real good, it brands no crime, it proposes no generous policy, it does not build, nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor foster religion, nor establish schools, nor encourage science, nor emancipate the slave, nor befriend the poor, or the Indian, or the immigrant. From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate with the resources of the nation.

The passage might be shortened as follows:

The spirit of our American radicalism is destructive and aimless. . . . On the other side, the conservative party . . . is timid, and merely defensive of property. . . . It does not build, nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor foster religion, nor establish schools.

Note that the first word after an ellipsis is capitalized if it begins a new grammatical sentence.

It is my understanding that if you omit the end of a sentence, it should be four dots, not three.

As an example of my previous point.

'And even then,' Rake continued, 'she couldn't bring me down.'

That is different because it is a dialogue tag joining the two bits of dialogue, not an action.

 

[Ursa major]

Okay, so referencing the Chicago Manual of Style here -

I suspect a hoax. Surely a full stop is called a period in the US...?

That is different because it is a dialogue tag joining the two bits of dialogue, not an action.

The commas are there because:

1. a (the) sentence of dialogue has been split, so one shouldn't have a full stop half way through it;
2. the action is not complicated.

One can include a short bit of action:

'And even then,' Rake continued, waving his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier, 'she couldn't bring me down.'

and still keep the commas.


If there was more action (or more anything), requiring another sentence**:

'And even then,' Rake continued, waving his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier. This became so vigorous that some of those present feared they'd receive a cut, 'she couldn't bring me down.'

the whole thing collapses. In such cases, one wouldn't split the sentence of dialogue.



** - Or even text separated by semicolons, I would argue, because the reader would have trouble connecting the two parts of the sentence of dialogue if there was too much narrative between them.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I suspect a hoax. Surely a full stop is called a period in the US...?

​

Hoax? Never!

Silly people changing names of things. So confusing....

 

[Warren_Paul]

The commas are there because:

1. a (the) sentence of dialogue has been split, so one shouldn't have a full stop half way through it;
2. the action is not complicated.

One can include a short bit of action:
and still keep the commas.

I agree, but with your example, you kept the dialogue tag.

If it was say:

'And even then,' Rake waved his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier, 'she couldn't bring me down.'

Does that still read right? I don't think it does - because the dialogue tag is missing, and it's now a comma splice too - which comes back to me saying that if you use the dialogue tag, you can join it with commas no problem. Because really, the action is just an extension and served as a subclause of the dialogue tag in your example.

 

[Ursa major]

Sorry, I hadn't realised what you were getting at. I think your latest example would be better punctuated with dashed:

'And even then --' Rake waved his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier '-- she couldn't bring me down.'

as I think I've seen Neal Asher do it, in either Gridlinked or Line of Polity, or

'And even then---' Rake waved his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier '---she couldn't bring me down.'

where -- is an en-dash and --- is an em-dash.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I agree with the dashes. They are tricksy punctuation that can replace other types. And that turns the action into a parenthetical phrase, separate from the dialogue. A digression to help explain something to the reader that has no bearing on the structure of the sentence. You should be able to cut out what is inside the dashes and the sentence still make sense. Of course em-dashes shouldn't be overused because they make the sentences more complicated, but I see nothing wrong with using them.

 

[Ursa major]

I wonder.

As Rake is the speaker, the dashes make sense whichever ones they are, as one needs little prompting to imagine him interrupting himself to wave his sword.

However, if the speaker happened to be someone else, would the use of either en-dashes or em-dashes suggest slightly different situations: the em dashes showing that the dialogue was interrupted?

I'll change the verb to a continuous tense to make the point clearer:

'And even then --' by now Rake was waving his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier '-- she couldn't bring me down.'

'And even then---' by now Rake was waving his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier '---she couldn't bring me down.'

It strikes me that in the first example, there's the possibility that the sentence is said in one go and just happens to be being spoken at the same time as the sword waving, whereas in the second example, the speaker, perhaps fearing being cut, has paused in the middle of the sentence.

Does that make sense?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I suspect a hoax. Surely a full stop is called a period in the US...?

We use both terms. We're versatile that way.



.

 

[Warren_Paul]

I wonder.

It strikes me that in the first example, there's the possibility that the sentence is said in one go and just happens to be being spoken at the same time as the sword waving, whereas in the second example, the speaker, perhaps fearing being cut, has paused in the middle of the sentence.

Does that make sense?

Wow, Ursa. I think we are starting to get over everybody's heads here.

I get that as well when reading it. There is a more definite pause in the em-dash version. The first en-dash version I could easily see being part of a narrator's voice in say an omniscient PoV who has a tendency to fill their narration with elaborate fluff and chase rabbits.

I don't like the em-dash version. It's too much of a break.

 

[Bowler1]

It strikes me that in the first example, there's the possibility that the sentence is said in one go and just happens to be being spoken at the same time as the sword waving, whereas in the second example, the speaker, perhaps fearing being cut, has paused in the middle of the sentence.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does make sense, have faith in the Chrons members WP.

'And even then, she couldn't bring me down.' By now Rake was waving his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier. - There is greater clarity in this version, but its lacking the immediate action here - the sword waving and talking.

In this example the pause after "then" is very slight so you could move the action outside the line to keep the slight pause in the speech. I perfer the original version with the sword to be honest and I do think it's talking and waving the sword about at the same time.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Yes it does make sense, have faith in the Chrons members WP.

Hmm? I'm not sure I understand your comment, Bowler? I don't think any of us were arguing the opposites, more just confused on interpretation of posts.

Personally, I think the best way to handle that sentence is how Ursa first suggested it with the dialogue tag, but all three ways work in the end.

'And even then,' Rake continued, waving his sword about as if pretending to be a real soldier, 'she couldn't bring me down.'

 

[Bowler1]

Sorry yes, you were into the detail of two similiar lines so I was a little misleading. Both your lines (WP & Ursa) have the actions in the middle. I perfered Ursa's with the speech tag in the middle but yours was good as well WP - the imediate sword waving was in both.

The point I tried to make was taking the action out of the speech was another solution, even if I don't like it all that much myself - the imediate sword waving is not really there, but it's easier to read and understand, or so I think.

The joys of comma's are hurting my head, and I've only re-inflated myself recently.