so, is this comma use OK?

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
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.

"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?"
 

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
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.

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 my character, 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.
 
Last edited:

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Post #4.

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.
 
Last edited:

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
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.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
If you didn't make up the rule, where is it?


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.
 

nealraisman

tenured at Mammon U
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
170
Reaction score
12
Location
Columbus, OH
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.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
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.

:deadhorse The insidious and totally bogus notion that commas intended to structure sentences for ease in reading can be twisted into use to insert pauses for speech--sometimes--and magically indicate hurried speech--at other times--is laughable.

So . . . by all means carry on with such beliefs for the dozens who buy books to read aloud.:e2Order:
 

Jo Zebedee

space opera-popcorn lover!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
919
Reaction score
96
Location
Off the shoulder of Orion, not far from Belfast.
Website
Www.jozebedee.com
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.
 
Last edited:

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
If you didn't make up the rule, where is it?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all my grammar books and locate and cite references. I doubt it would do any good; you probably don't have the same books.

Instead, I'll point you to the dictionary. One of the definitions of so is: for that reason, for this reason, therefore. If your dictionary has example sentences, none of them should contain a comma after so. Here are some examples from mine:

The dog was hungry; so [therefore] we fed it.
I don't want to go with you, so [therefore] I'll say goodbye now.

You can see that so can be replaced with therefore in those sentences.

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?

In regards to the OP's question, that is why I said the use of a comma is determined by context (and what the writer's intent would be within that context), not by whim (and certainly not to create a pause).

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?
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
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?

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?"

caw
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Phew.
 
Last edited:

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
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'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.
 
Last edited:

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
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?"

Kind of like covered in Post #16?

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?

Not saying "so" can't possibly work as an interjection, because I guess any word can be thrown in there; however, an exhaustive search through lists of interjections (such as the one below) failed to show "so" included.

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/100-mostly-small-but-expressive-interjections/

If we look at other conjunctions forced into service as interjections (and, or, nor, but, for, yet), they look wrong followed by a comma, simply because they imply something other than an interjection.

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.

Absolutely well stated! :D
 

WWWalt

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
118
Reaction score
10
"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.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
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 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.
 
Last edited:

Jo Zebedee

space opera-popcorn lover!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
919
Reaction score
96
Location
Off the shoulder of Orion, not far from Belfast.
Website
Www.jozebedee.com
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.

So why then do we have different approaches to punctuation if it's all so cut and dried? For instance, semi colons. I like them. I use them correctly. Others hate them. They don't use them, preferring dashes, and splices (shudder) and full stops. I find constructions like that too staccato for my taste but won't dispute that, grammatically, the dash may not be wrong, nor the semi colon. I would also agree that, grammatically, the same sentence could sometimes be written with a full stop and, whilst it changes the flow of the piece, it doesn't mean I can't understand what was written.

Now, people will come back and argue that if it could be written with a full stop or comma it doesn't need a semi colon, but, in fact, often the semi is the correct punctuation for it in the letter of the law but doesn't fit with the writer's (or indeed, editor's*) style.

* 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.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Because there are those who understand what punctuation is and how to use it and there are those who don't.

We use it to make our intended meaning clear - that's all we can do, and if we don't like using, or don't want to use, a particular punctuation mark - so be it.

Whether or not that makes our manuscript any clearer or less clear depends upon what we chose to use or not to use and whether or not it's used properly.
 

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
* 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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
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.
 
Last edited:

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
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.

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.
 

guttersquid

I agree with Roxxsmom.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
229
Location
California, U.S.A.
You really are nit-picking here, guttersquid.

Sorry, didn't intend to pick any nits. When I read "the writer . . . felt it [the semicolon] was needed to convey his intended meaning," I took it to mean that without the semicolon the meaning would be different. Now I see that's not what you meant.

If that close relationship is what a writer wishes to show then that is using the punctuation mark for its intended use.

Yes, that is the precise use of the mark.

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.

Yes, strengthen is the perfect verb, and I completely agree.
 

WWWalt

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
118
Reaction score
10
There's no reason any two folk should articulate the same phrase in the same way if they attach different interpretations to it.

True, but I am speaking of cases where the written meaning is clearly (and correctly) rendered. One who interprets "Let's eat, grandma" as an invitation to stir-fry the old lady is misconstruing the conventional meaning of the comma in the sentence.

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.

Like punctuation, articulations have conventions that can affect the meaning of the words spoken. "We're leaving." carries a different meaning from "We're leaving?" In written form, the punctuation delineates the difference; the parallel spoken convention is so well known that everyone here automatically applied it in their heads.

Sure, there may be various legitimate ways to articulate a given written phrase, any one of which conveys the meaning the writer intended. But it's also possible for a speaker to misconvey a writer's clear intent if s/he doesn't follow certain recognized conventions. For instance, if you read aloud the bumper sticker "Love people. Cook them tasty food." and you articulate it as "Love people. Cook them. Tasty food." you are altering the writer's intent merely by your application of articulation.

(Articulation can also affect punctuation convention. It is only recently that people have taken to writing individual words of a sentence with full stops between them: "We're. Leaving. Now." This style of articulation has long existed, of course, but there had not been a widely used written expression of it until a decade or two ago.)
 

Nualláin

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
139
Reaction score
21
If you ask a room full of writers a disjunctive question, and they argue about it for three weeks, then the correct answer was "write it how you want to."

With tongue partially in cheek,
N.