How would you punctuate this?

[Ursa major]

'I want that one', he pointed to the double 99, 'with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'

At the risk of inciting the wrath of the SFTPOTUOCS**, isn't this an example of comma splicing, i.e. using commas to separate independent clauses? I think it might very well be.


Oh, and as HareBrain mentioned: if you take away the action, the dialogue doesn't look quite right:

'I want that one with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'
​

because it is either: 1) a bit unnatural on its own***, as it would be call for a (prior or simultaneous) action that isn't there; 2) or, if the words are meant to be all that's needed, uses 'that' where it would be more natural to use 'the':

'I want the one with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'
​

Whether this means that the dialogue is grammatically wrong or not, I'm not entirely sure (if only because it is dialogue, which is given a bit more leeway than narration). And even with narration, we are allowed to write things that, though grammatically iffy, read better than something that is grammatically perfect. But (I did it again ) if we bear in mind the grammar and how things read, I think we're less likely to make errors (where one sort of "error" can be defined as writing that calls unnecessary attention to itself).

Oh, and there's another way of writing this:

'I want that one with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...' He was pointing at the double 99.
​

And now we're in full picky mode. If the dialogue we're being shown is complete -- i.e. there really are no words after the 'and' in the complete text -- shouldn't there be an extra period (full stop) after the ellipsis:

'I want that one with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and....'​

** - Society For The Propagation Of The Use Of Comma Splices, a bunch of ne'er-do-wells if ever there was one.

*** - Obviously, all the examples you've quoted do include an action.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

A

And now we're in full picky mode. If the dialogue we're being shown is complete -- i.e. there really are no words after the 'and' in the complete text -- shouldn't there be an extra period (full stop) after the ellipsis:

'I want that one with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and....'​

It's not complete but Beanie doesn't complete it.


“I want that one.” He pointed at the double 99. “With flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...”

“And sherbet please, Brenda.” Ian came up behind Beanie.

 

[HareBrain]

If all of the below are grammatically correct, perhaps they could to be added to the Editing Guide Sheet as examples.

'I want that one.' He pointed to the double 99. 'With flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'

'I want that one', he pointed to the double 99, 'with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'

'I want that one' — he pointed to the double 99 — 'with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'

'I want that one…' he pointed to the double 99 '…with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...'

'I want that one,' he said, pointing to the double 99.

As I pointed out above, the second one isn't.

A good rule of thumb is to take out the quote marks; it's often then easier to see where the sentence structure works and doesn't.

I want that one. He pointed to the double 99. With flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...

I want that one, he pointed to the double 99, with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...

I want that one — he pointed to the double 99 — with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...

I want that one … he pointed to the double 99 … with flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...

I want that one, he said, pointing to the double 99.

The second doesn't work (because it suggests "point" as the verb relating to "I want that one"); the others do (though I prefer dashes to ellipses, since ellipses suggest missing words, which isn't the case here).

 

[Ursa major]

“I want that one.” He pointed at the double 99. “With flakes, sprinkles, sauce and...”

“And sherbet please, Brenda.” Ian came up behind Beanie.

In which case, it might be better if the ellipses were to be replaced by em-dashes:

“I want that one.” He pointed at the double 99. “With flakes, sprinkles, sauce and—”

“—and sherbet please, Brenda.” Ian came up behind Beanie.​

The ellipses suggest a voluntary pause by the speaker (in this case, Beanie). The em-dashes suggest that Ian interrupted Beanie mid-sentence.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

In which case, it might be better if the ellipses were to be replaced by em-dashes:

“I want that one.” He pointed at the double 99. “With flakes, sprinkles, sauce and—”

“—and sherbet please, Brenda.” Ian came up behind Beanie.​

The ellipses suggest a voluntary pause by the speaker (in this case, Beanie). The em-dashes suggest that Ian interrupted Beanie mid-sentence.

Maybe I'll think about it. Either way I don't need the commas In my head Beanie has paused to wonder what else there is and Ian fills in the missing word. I think the ellipses illustrate it better.

 

[2DaveWixon]

Maybe I'll think about it. Either way I don't need the commas In my head Beanie has paused to wonder what else there is and Ian fills in the missing word. I think the ellipses illustrate it better.

I fully support you in doing what feels best to you.

Much as grammarians (and others) would like to have the English language be a regulated system, completely blueprinted and subject to unbending rules -- it will never work. English is a constantly evolving creation of the millions of people who use it for the purpose of communicating what they feel, and it's clearly never been possible for rules to be set up that will cover every possible perceived need.
As writers, the best we can do is try to phrase a thought in the way that will come closest to conveying the image in our heads. But it's impossible to convey every single nuance of our mental images -- as Gordon Dickson said, if one mentions the cat that just walked into the hero's room, every reader will, in his/her head, imagine a different cat. And unless the writer is willing at that point to go into exhaustive detail about what the cat looked like, how it moved, and what it was there for -- the writer has to be willing to accept that each reader is now seeing a slightly different scene.
Our writer, then, has only to plunge ahead, going for the overall picture and leaving such details to be "created" by the reader.

And isn't it true that writing is not about the writer telling the reader the entire and complete story that is in the writer's head, but about the writer leading the reader in a sort of collaboration to create -- between them -- a story (maybe it should be "stories") that is best described as the reader's take on what the writer first envisioned and began to describe?

 

[AnyaKimlin]

And isn't it true that writing is not about the writer telling the reader the entire and complete story that is in the writer's head, but about the writer leading the reader in a sort of collaboration to create -- between them -- a story (maybe it should be "stories") that is best described as the reader's take on what the writer first envisioned and began to describe?

I'm sure a number of people here can tell you how I disagree with my readers about Angus, my character from my epic fantasy. I gave up trying to convince people he was an ugly, pathetic, wimp

 

[Ursa major]

it's clearly never been possible for rules to be set up that will cover every possible perceived need

But communication is, obviously, impossible without any rules. The issue here is where the balance is set between a string of incomprehensible characters and writing that's structured so that it can only be read one way** ***.

Now in normal life -- particularly in situations where the communication is two-way -- we can get away with a lot of iffy grammar. We writers (aspiring or otherwise) are, though, expected to have higher standards (if only by ourselves). And what we write has to contain enough information to get across what we need to get across to the reader. On top of that, we don't get a say in who those readers are. It may be that the vast majority of readers do not know the difference between the sentences where one uses ellipses and one uses em-dashes. But some will, and they may**** very well take what we have written as a deliberate choice, and not an example of us not knowing the difference.

Basically, we owe it to our readers to be as unambiguous as we can be (as we want to be) without boring them to tears. Punctuation is probably the least boring way of doing this. For example, to get the idea across that Ian is definitely interrupting Beanie, or definitely jumping in when Beanie has paused, without using em-dashes for the former and ellipses for the latter, would mean spelling it out:

At this point, Ian interrupted Beanie, saying, "And sherbet please, Brenda."

Beanie paused, letting Ian add, "And sherbet please, Brenda."​

** - Examples of this would be computer programs (give or take the bugs) and legal documents (in theory if not always in practice), neither of them known for being easy to read or comprehend (unless one is, in the first case, a compiler or computer programmer and, in the second, a lawyer).

*** - Unless we want it to be ambiguous -- which we sometimes do -- something that's easier to control when we actually know what we're doing.

**** - Of course, if our they read our text and realise that we use ellipses where em-dashes would be more appropriate (divined from the context in which they're used), or vice versa, then they may make allowances, decide that we are not in full control of our prose, or both.