"but you were making up a 'rule'."
No, I wasn't. Here are the rules I was referring to.
1.
introducing a question.
"so, what did you do today?"
introducing a question following on from what was said previously.
"so what did he do about it?"
2.
Like and and but, so can be used as a transitional word to begin a sentence, in which case no comma is used.
"And do we have a deal?"
"But do we have a deal?"
"So do we have a deal?"
Yes, it is up to the writer to decide what to use, but the writer should know the rules in order to weigh his/her options.
And if a writer really wishes to stress a pause, there's punctuation for that.
"So . . . do we have a deal?"
That wasn't the made up rule to which I was referring and you know it perfectly well.
You seem to quote what suits you in order to justify your stance whenever your position is questioned.
When so is used as a conjunction, as it is here, whether or not a comma is used is determined by context.
Use a comma when introducing a question. "So, do we have a deal?"
Don't use a comma when introducing a question following on from what was said previously. "So do we have a deal?"
As far as I am aware, the only rules being discussed here concern when to use a comma in the sentence "So do we have a deal?" and all of my posts have dealt with that. Despite your accusation, I have no idea of what other rule to which you were referring.
Perhaps, instead of attacking me, it would be more productive to simply state to which rule you were referring, and we could discuss that. At least then I would know what you were talking about, because right now I do not.
I was in error with the first part of my opening sentence. I'll fix it now, but because of what you underlined, I don't think that was the problem.
When so is used as a conjunction, as it is here,whether or not a comma is used is determined by context.
Use a comma when introducing a question. "So, do we have a deal?"
Don't use a comma when introducing a question following on from what was said previously. "So do we have a deal?"
I have already addressed that (see your previous post). And, no, I did not make up the rule. I will add, however, that the rule doesn't apply only to questions. It applies to statements, as well.
The original use of the comma was to indicate a pause in the voice when writing down what was said by someone orally. As such, the use of the comma as stated in the beginning of this all is correct. It tells the reader to pause before reading the rest of the sentence. It also helps clarify, in this case, that this is a statement, not a question if one follows the inflection in the voice as indicated by the comma. just try reading the sentence outloud and you'll see that the comma tells you to pause in your reading aloud.
If you didn't make up the rule, where is it?
If TKO intended so to mean therefore, then a comma would be wrong. If TKO intended it to be an interjection, then a comma is needed.
So [therefore] do we have a deal?
So [Well], do we have a deal?
I'm sorry - how do you read dialogue without hearing it? I didn't even know that was possible. I'm afraid - aloud or in my head - I do hear it as a voice, so the comma makes a difference to my reading experience, one that absolutely improves it.
I think laughable is a bit of a negative term, since those of us who believe punctuation can be used to denote inflection/idiom aren't either in the minority (judging by this thread) or being negative in return. I for one am taking on board your points and being polite in considering them. So far they've failed to convince me they're right for me.
Which was exactly my point. With the comma, it reads differently than without the comma. In dialogue, you could also:
"So. Do we have a deal?"
or
"So: Do we have a deal?"
or
"So . . . do we have a deal?"
But so can also be used interjectionally (like Well). When that's the case, so is set off by a comma.
So [Well], what do you want to do today?
Although we may, when reading aloud, choose or not choose to pause at a comma it is not the purpose of a comma to tell us to pause when we see one.
The sole purpose of the comma is to help us comprehend the meaning of the written words.
"Let's eat Grandma" versus "Let's eat, Grandma." Unless it's being proposed we eat grandma, it's the comma that gives us the correct intended meaning. It is not telling us to pause. How the sentences are spoken is entirely up to the speaker - context will be the guide and they can both be spoken exactly the same if desired.
I don't think you would find very many speakers who would articulate that phrase the same way when inviting grandma to a seat at the dinner table as when inviting a confederate to shove her into the oven. In particular, most speakers will drop the pitch of their voices slightly at the end of the word "eat" in the non-cannibalistic meaning, and this is often accompanied by more of a pause than they would use in the grandmatricidal sense.
As you and many others have pointed out, the purpose of punctuation isn't to indicate how something is spoken. Nonetheless, the spoken and written versions of our language did not evolve independently. There are parallels between how we punctuate and how we speak.
There's no reason any two folk should articulate the same phrase in the same way if they attach different interpretations to it.
Punctuation is intended to aid comprehension of what is being read - articulation is entirely up to the individual and whatever their interpretation of that text may be.
* i've read a couple of edits by John Jarrold (not my own work) and he hates semi colons, believing almost all can be replaced with a full stop, or comma for instance.
Original posted byguttersquid: All semicolons (not talking the serial kind here) can be replaced with full stops (periods). A semicolon connects two independent clauses. Replace it with a full stop and you're left with two sentences.
No semicolon can be replaced with a comma alone (without a coordinating conjunction). Doing so creates a comma splice.
Semicolons are never needed; using one is always a style choice.
Never needed?
If using a semicolon is a style choice then it is used because the writer - whether or not it be considered right or wrong in anyone else's eyes - felt it was needed to convey his intended meaning.
If a writer uses a semicolon only because s/he feels it is needed, then that by definition makes it a choice, not a necessity.
And semicolons don't affect meaning in any way. They show a close relationship between independent clauses, but the meanings of the clauses don't change.
You really are nit-picking here, guttersquid.
If that close relationship is what a writer wishes to show then that is using the punctuation mark for its intended use.
The meaning of the individual clauses may not change. Why should they? But their shown close relationship may well strengthen the intended combined meaning of otherwise independent clauses.
There's no reason any two folk should articulate the same phrase in the same way if they attach different interpretations to it.
Punctuation is intended to aid comprehension of what is being read - articulation is entirely up to the individual and whatever their interpretation of that text may be.