Wordsmithing: The Comma Needs To Go! [Revised]

The Comma Needs To Go!

Quotations. That integral key to any good narrative. I enjoy reading a good book, and one of the key factors in elevating any book from ‘enjoyable’ to ‘classic’ material is the dialogues that take place between the characters. Yet there’s one inconsistency I’ve noticed in narrative punctuation that gives me a horrible ‘knee-jerk’ experience every time I examine the logic behind our punctuation. I’m talking about our comma usage.

When we quote our characters, we’re not saying “Steven said that…” and then go on to paraphrase what they actually said. No, we’re quoting them. Steven said, “I am speaking.” Now, for that example, the comma is perfectly fine. It introduces what the Character is about to say. But what about this? “I am speaking,” said Chris. Should there be a comma there? NO!!! There should never be a comma in that position when quoting a declarative (or imperative) sentence said by a Character.

Let me hasten to say all my disclaimers, and then I shall return to the previous point. It is acceptable to use a comma there when the Character is using either an informal fragment, or the sentence is continued in a following quote. For example, suppose “How do you roast a marshmallow?” Oscar asked. “With fire,” replied David. Any problems with that? None whatsoever. It is grammatically acceptable to use a comma in that situation. And then for the second scenario indicated: “I really like ducks,” said Courtney, “but I also like dolphins.” With that quote, the sentence is a compound sentence (two independent clauses) joined by a comma and a coordinating conjunction. [HUH? It’s two sentences turned into one].

With our quotes, we are quoting exactly what our Characters are saying. This is not a quote: Character said that it was tired. What that implies is- Katie said, “I’m tired.” but is not directly quoting what Katie said. What if Katie said, “I’m kinda tired, but I can manage for now.” ? There is a huge, distinguishable difference between a paraphrase (which uses the word ‘that’ to indicate the following is not a direct quote) and retelling verbatim what someone else said. That is the entire argument behind ditching the comma at the beginning of a quote.

I am not arguing that we get rid of commas altogether. I am not saying that there is never a time or a place to use them (I already cited two examples of when to use them). But I am arguing against using them in a specific instance, when the quote begins a paragraph. According to ‘proper grammar,’ it is incorrect to do the following:

“This is so wrong.” Ronnie said.

However, it is right to do this:

“This is a huge pet peeve of mine,” said Andrew.

Does that make any sense at all? When quoting someone else, are you paraphrasing, or are you quoting them? If you’re saying word-for-word what they said (reciting verbatim, but don’t worry, we’ll forgive you for not getting the tonal inflections), that’s quoting, and as such it should be done to the dot. Period. And I mean that both ways. You should quote them exactly, period, and you should quote them to the period.

When another person is talking, are they ending their sentences with commas? No, they’re most likely using a variety of sentence types in their speaking. I did not write this solely in declarative sentences. People don’t speak entirely in questions (although with some people, they sound like they are). And so when someone ends their statement, they use a period (sorry, there isn’t any phonetic punctuation). Jim said, “I am really sick of all this grammar.”

Does that end in a comma? Absolutely not. Any good grammar teacher would be pulling out their hair if someone said that it did. If you remove the quotation marks and ‘Jim said,’ you are left with a declarative sentence “I am really sick of all this grammar.” And yet if you put the quote in front of ‘Jim said’ it is suddenly grammatically incorrect to keep the period.

So where does this leave us? With a very confusing punctuation system. [For those of you who are silently criticizing all of the fragments I have included in my writing, I defend that they are there on purpose and are grammatically acceptable because this is informal writing, and it is acceptable to use fragments for emphasis in informal writing. If you don’t believe me, go look it up.] And then this mind-boggling illogical regulation is further compounded with the exclamation point and question mark.

“I can’t take this anymore!” shouted Yet Another Character. That is perfectly acceptable punctuation. “Why in the world does this make sense?” asked a Third Character. Both of those are acceptable. When we’re quoting someone who asks a question or exclaims whatever it was they thought important enough to warrant an exclamation point, we put the appropriate punctuation in their dialogue and it is considered grammatically correct. Yet when a Character makes a statement in that first quotation, suddenly their declarative sentence (or imperative) warrants a comma. Both exclamatory sentences and interrogative sentences express a complete thought. A declarative or imperative (mathematical ‘or’ used. Translation- mutually inclusive ) sentence contains an independent clause, also known as a complete thought that can stand alone. When quoting someone’s exclamatory or interrogative sentence, we keep the exclamation point or question mark. Yet when we quote a Character’s declarative or non-emphasized imperative sentence (an imperative sentence without an exclamation point), the period has to go in place of a comma. Why does that make sense? Both the exclamatory and interrogative sentences express complete thoughts and retain their proper punctuation, yet declarative and non-emphasized imperative sentences cannot allow their proper punctuation, but instead must have a comma, which would be entirely incorrect if the sentence was not a quote.

Example: “This is an example,” said Tony. According to ‘proper’ grammar, that sentence is correct. But take that quote as a stand-alone sentence (which it is fully capable of doing), and you have This is an example, There is no period to end the sentence, and you’re left with either a missing coordinating conjunction and succeeding independent clause, or a missing dependent clause, OR (horror of horrors) a fragment! Yet that sentence is not a fragment, but a complete thought. Correctly written alone, the sentence reads thus: This is an example. But all of a sudden, when that sentence is quoted and we’re told who said it, there must be a comma in place of a period!

If you’ve read this long enough to get to this point, I’m going to try and address the other ‘school of thought’ or the ‘counter-argument.’ That side of the coin says that since the quote is now a part of the ‘big picture’ sentence, “This is an example,” said Eli. They claim that the sentence should be viewed as a whole, and therefore requires a comma. I concede that, to a degree, such reasoning makes sense. However, this is why I disagree: Characters do not (always) speak in fragments. You and I speak in complete sentences (perhaps not all the time, but there are examples of every human being speaking in a complete sentence at least once in their lifetime). So from that point of view, the quote stands alone; that is, it is not a part of the sentence said Esther. But wait a minute! Isn’t said Esther. a fragment? Technically, no. Let’s examine. Esther is the subject, and said is the verb. So we have said Esther. Since we have identified our subject, it’s time to examine our verb, ‘said.’ What is ‘said?’ It is an action verb, which means it’s either intransitive or transitive. ‘Said’ is a transitive verb, so that means it has a direct object. And what is the direct object of that sentence? The entire quotation. Everything in between the open-quotes and closed-quotes is the direct object. It does not matter what the content of that quote is, whether it be one sentence or a thousand. The entire quote is the direct object. And, again, the quote stands alone.

Now, I understand that it may be confusing that I keep saying the quote stands alone, when I also call it the direct object. But what I mean is this: as a direct object, the quote stands alone in its entirety when functioning as the direct object. The external segment of the sentence (So-and-so said) has nothing to do with the punctuation of the sentence. Take, for example, an interrogative sentence. What is a question? This by itself is fine. Now let’s quote it. “What is a question?" Harry asked. Strange, we keep the question mark, which is supposed to end a sentence. However, the sentence goes on, Harry asked. This is the same for any sentence using an exclamation point. So why is it that the period is the only punctuation mark that gets changed? Majority dictates that we keep the period, not change it.

There are two ways of looking at the majority: sentence type, and punctuation marks. Of the four types of sentences (declarative, imperative, interrogative, exclamatory), only two use a period (the first two), and even then the period only counts for half of the imperative type endings. With those periods, they are removed and replaced with commas in quotation marks. However, with the other half of the imperative sentence type, the emphasized, there is an exclamation mark, which is retained when quoted. This is the same for the interrogative and exclamatory sentence types. So that leaves us with changing the punctuation for 1.5 types of sentences, and retaining the punctuation for 2.5 types. Majority wins! Keep the period.

And even if you disagree with that perspective, let’s examine the punctuation itself. There are three ways to end a sentence: with a period, question mark, and exclamation point. For all quoted sentences, the question mark and exclamation point are retained. For the rest of the quotes, the period is changed into a comma. Again, that leaves us with a one point difference, 2 to 1 in favor of retaining the original punctuation. So for consistency’s sake, we need to keep our periods where they belong.

I shall repeat my disclaimers for those of you who have lost them in this article. I am only advocating that the period be retained when it would be used for the sentence, should that sentence not be quoted. Illustration: “This is an example.” said Eva. That quoted sentence, if it were to stand alone, would require a period. So put one there. But for fragments- “Not that,” said Another Character. - or for sentences continued later- “This is exactly,” said Character, “what I’m talking about.” - the comma could be used. Those sentences, if they stood alone, would requires commas (or grammatical adjustment). So those are where the comma could be retained.

I am finished. I have said all that I feel obligated to say without repeating myself again. Any questions?

Addendum: Audience Analysis

I would be remiss if I did not mention that you must keep your audience in perspective with your writing. Is your desire to have a stylistic difference enough motivation to risk losing readers to you "grammatical errors"? There will be readers, if you use this system of punctuation, that will stop reading because they think you're 'wrong' with your writing. It is, however, a style issue: so decide if this is a hill worth sacrificing your writing on.