grammar question

[juldea]

In transcription, this issue comes up all the time. We are in general not allowed to change the speakers' words, but often things that sound grammatically correct aloud are difficult to make correct in text. The biggest offender that I have trouble with is when the speaker is quoting someone else's interrogative within a dependent/subordinate clause, requiring (to my mind) both a question mark at the end of the quotation and a comma before the independent/main clause.

So, what do you think?

[Poll #1445523]

Comments

I voted for #2 but

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I'd consider using a dash as a separator.

[idonotlikepeas]

There is no non-objectionable way of doing this.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Seriously. >_<

[londo.livejournal.com]

If your goal is to be grammatically correct, #1 is the right answer. If your goal is to accurately use commas to indicate speech timing, #2 is correct - the pause is not part of the quotation, so the comma should go outside.

If the speaker's voice didn't go up, then I think it'd be #3.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Is #2 grammatically inoffensive enough to use regularly? (It is to ME, but I'm asking the world at large here.)

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Decidedly not.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Actually, not decidedly, or this post wouldn't have so many interesting responses. :)

Unless you're speaking from the point of one of the particularly set down style guides.

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's no way to say this without sounding like an asshole, but just because a group of people don't happen to know the right answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't one.

The MLA, AP, and Chicago style guides are all very emphatic that question marks and commas should never be combined and that question marks supersede commas when both are called for. Garner's agrees, adding that setting the question off with em dashes is old-fashioned but acceptable. (Strunk and White, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, and several other general-English guides that I have are all too brief to address the question directly.)

These are four incredibly different style guides--Garner's approach is even relatively descriptive (favoring English as it is used rather trying to enforce rules that are not currently being followed). The reason they all agree is that there is a very firm consensus on this issue: question marks and commas do not get combined.

Not everyone can keep all these titchy little rules in their heads--most people don't need to use all of them--but I'm a copy editor. I address these questions all the time. #1 is correct.

[yunafonfabre.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was gonna say.

[corwyn-ap.livejournal.com]

Dictionaries will happily tell you that they are constructed from words _as they are used_. Grammar guides want you to believe that the last change in grammar was made by Julius Caesar and he had to conquer the known world to do it.

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

I agree with what I gather to be your main point, which is that many grammarians would do well to have intrusive pieces of vegetation removed from their posteriors, but it's not really relevant here. juldea asked for the "correct" answer, which demands a prescriptive approach, because a descriptive one would tell you there are many correct answers, which is unhelpful. She also said she's looking for the answer that won't cause her clients to look down on her company, which again calls for a prescriptive approach, because her clients are certainly expecting transcripts which follow the rules of formal grammar as closely as possible. If the situation calls for a prescriptive approach, style guides are the place to look for answers.

As for the details of your comment... well, there I can't agree so readily. Yes, style guides are definitionally prescriptive, but there's a huge variation in how they approach the language. Strunk and White tends to have a stick up its butt, but Garner's is about as descriptive as a style guide can get, and there are a million other guides in between. And dictionaries are definitionally descriptive in that words only have meanings if we all use them the same way, and therefore dictionaries must only describe the language as used. But even here there's an element of prescriptivism: certain sources are privileged when deciding whether to add a new word, certain types of words (e.g. business jargon) are more likely to make it in than others (e.g. slang), and often these decisions have a lot to do with racial and class prejudices. So dictionaries help create a class of people who are "allowed" to make up new words by legitimizing them with inclusion, just as prescriptivism creates a class that is "allowed" to make and break and enforce the rules of grammar. In both cases, an elite argues that their version of the language is correct, attempts to force it on everyone else, and gets backed up to some extent by language reference books.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the merits of prescriptivism and descriptivism per se because I've had it approximately 96 gabillion times now. I will say that although I am obviously defending a prescriptivist position here, my approach to grammar is neither strictly prescriptive nor descriptive. (I note this because all too often people want to share the Good Word of descriptivism with the editor among them when I am already well aware. Probably no one here is that pushy, but just in case...)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

...just because a group of people don't happen to know the right answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't one.

But it gets down to which question I was originally asking -- and before I get into the differentiation, let me say that from the start I wasn't sure which one I was asking, and I'm happy to get the answer to both. But there are two separate answers here: one is which is the correct, by the book(s), copyeditors'-base-of-knowledge answer, and which is the answer most recognizable, comprehendable, and least reprehensible to the layperson. I would love it if the two intersected, but they don't, at least not all the time. Also, let me say again that I don't know which I was asking for in the first place as I was ruminating on this particular grammatical quandry!

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Part of what I was driving at with saying that there's a clear consensus on this issue (and believe me, there are many where that is not the case) is that this is what people are taught in school, this is what all printed materials do, this is, unquestionably, the accepted standard everywhere you want to look and has been for years. So by all rights it should also be the most recognizable, the one that laypeople see as correct. It's interesting that many of them don't, which is what I was chalking up to the memory ditching information they don't normally need.

But part of the answer, too, is that most people just don't pay that close attention to punctuation. It's still important to get it right, because it provides a lot of clues that readers don't even realize they're picking up, but where there's ambiguity--whether caused by or in spite of the punctuation--most people can figure things out though context. So it's entirely possible that no matter which formulation you decide to go with, your clients won't really notice. Which sounds sad, but I mean it in a stress-relieving way.

[yunafonfabre.livejournal.com]

This is, sadly, one of the cases where some of the answers actually would lower my opinion of the company. Either #1 or #3 registers to me as acceptable. Both #2 and #4 are completely unacceptable, though #2 is worse.

My view on this is ... if you were writing an informal letter or otherwise working purely on your own, then the descriptivist view might be acceptable. But in transcription and copy editing you need to be prescriptivist and do what the authorities currently consider the "correct" thing, even if it looks wrong to descriptivist eyes. 'Cause unless the descriptivists are paying you they don't get a say. :(

[diego001.livejournal.com]

I think that while #1 looks pretty, #2 logically conveys that the question mark is part of the quotation and then there's a half-stop afterwards.

[bleemoo.livejournal.com]

English is not a prescriptive language; as long as your meaning is clear, any of the above options are valid. I personally read #2 as the clearest, but as other comments to this entry make clear, this may not be a popular opinion.

I find it interesting that other comments seem to contradict each other describing which one is the "right" way to do it; I'll count that as evidence that English is not prescriptive.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Some options are more valid than others. ;) I'd prefer the ones that our clients would look down on us for the least.

[bleemoo.livejournal.com]

It is, true that there -- are some metho'ds of punctuation that are fairly universally frowned on? But they all tend to muddle meaning and make language harder to understand.

In this case, where different manuals of style will either recommend contradictory options or not cover this example at all, I can't imagine that any reasonable client would object to any of the options presented. This is not to say that you'll never have unreasonable clients, but there's no way to predict which option they'll be offended by.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I think there is a way to predict which way they'd be most offended - by a poll such as this, which gathers for me both the opinions of a large group en masse as well as the opinions of a few choice few with particular education on the topic! A nice sampling, if I do say so myself.

[bleemoo.livejournal.com]

The option that is overwhelmingly popular (#2) was called "woefully incorrect" in another comment to the post. So while you are right that this poll is a good predictive tool, I will revise my previous statement to say that there is no foolproof way to predict which option they'll be offended by.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Correct. But once again, even if a 100%-likely-to-work option isn't available, I'll go with the 80%-likely-to-work option. :)

[thespian.livejournal.com]

and if the goal is to adhere to either the standards of the MLA or the AP or to Chicago Style, then neither is correct, and the frustrating (but correct) version is #3.

That said, that's an *Americanism*; Canadian Press style book and my BBC style guide both discuss putting commas where they make sense, not where they Must Be Placed according to a Rule.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

When our clients have a specific set of standards they want us to follow, they do let us know. This question is more for the laypeople out there, but those who we still don't want to look automatically wrong to. ;)

[corwyn-ap.livejournal.com]

Sadly, this is where grammar and I part ways. See Londo's answer above. I like to have punctuation marks which are tools, or parts of a computer language, where the pieces have functions. Grammar is stuck on 'thou shalt' rules.

Since you are doing transcription, I (naturally) would side with writing what you hear, and letting someone else fix any perceived grammar issues.

[witticaster.livejournal.com]

I say quite often that I dislike bad grammar, but there's a point at which I consider correct grammar to be bad grammar. In this case, #2 is the most clear in its meaning, and thus it's the one that I'd prefer people use. Then again, I wouldn't put a comma between "asked" and the quotation, so I don't know how valid my insular view of grammar is.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't put a comma between "asked" and the quotation

That one is hard and fast law in my book. :)

[witticaster.livejournal.com]

Aye, it is in most, but though my speech pauses after "he said" and "they asked," it wouldn't waver after "was asked," so I wouldn't put a comma. And I'm fairly certain that it only pauses after the first two because of this particular grammar rule, which I argued about as a child before finally giving in to. (Though not in all instances, apparently.) Fortunately I tend to avoid such sentences altogether because they sound wrong to me.

So basically, if you're looking for formal and precise rules of grammar, which you are, my preferences aren't likely to be helpful. I have my pet peeves, but they tend to deal more with word usage than punctuation.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Are you sure your speech wouldn't waver after "was asked" in the case of a direct quotation following? Imagine if you were specifically mimicking someone's voice in the quotation. There's a difference in, "After he was asked what he thought about it, Brian..." and "After he was asked, 'What do you think about that?'(,) Brian..." For me, I pause in one and not the other, as the comma indicates. I am only arguing because I really assume everyone else does, but you can feel free to tell me that you don't, and I'll try and find out through your speech patterns later :D

[witticaster.livejournal.com]

If I were specifically mimicking them, sure. But unless I have some reason to convey more than the words, I try not to mimic people. It ends poorly. Though now that I think about it, if I'm running in that mode I also don't do the upturn at the end, so the question mark is as unnecessary as other comments have suggested. So I suppose I find 2 and 3 acceptable for different circumstances based on sound, but find 2 sans the first comma the most pleasant in terms of reading.

[jmspencer.livejournal.com]

My "It's something else" was "#2, without the comma after 'asked'". Since it's not being used as a direct quotation, but rather as part of a larger thought, I don't believe that it's necessary. Additionally, putting that comma there is inconsistent if you punctuate the rest to indicate speech patterns.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

+1

[pezzonovante.livejournal.com]

I have to second this. I was leaning towards #2, but didn't like the comma before the beginning of the quote.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't put a comma there if it was, "After he was asked what he thought of that, Brian went on a tirade," because that's not using a quotation at all. But in the example I gave, the point was the use of a direct quotation. I perhaps should've used something a bit more specific or exotic, but it should be indicated that the person speaking is quoting someone else's exact words.

In which case, as well, at least in my speech patterns there is a pause there.

[princess-muffin.livejournal.com]

It needs to be the comma and nothing else. Using two sentence-ending punctuation marks together is woefully incorrect, and using only a question mark ends the phrase, making the words before it a sentence fragment and also grammatically incorrect.

Because the quoted text is merely a reference to words that had been spoken in the past, and not reflecting words being actively spoken in the narrative, passing up the question mark does not besmirch the meaning of the sentence; especially because of the use of "asked" to explain how the quoted words were delivered.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

your instinct is correct according to the Big Books of Grammar out there, though.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

#3, the comma only, is how I end up formatting all of the various options that come through me for editing.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

For the record #2 doesn't make me wince. Ubiquitous comma is ubiquitous.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Oooh. I have JUST the topic!

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Normally I would rewrite to avoid this awkwardness, but obviously that's not an option for you. #1 is both grammatically correct and accepted as the right answer by style guides, so go with that. If you really think it's unclear, your other option is this: After he was asked--What do you think about that?--Brian went off on a tirade. This is--according to Garner's, at least--perfectly acceptable, but it's now so unusual that it may look wrong to some readers and actually hinder clarity, so you'll have to judge whether it's worth it yourself.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I do think that for the most part, our clients would be more confused by the double-dash/em-dash (that is the point of the double-dash, yes?) option than any of the above grammatically incorrect ones. I do find it interesting that it exists as a specified solution to the problem, though!

[freerange-snark.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm actually not sure I completely agree with Garner there, but it was the only alternative I could find. Though I should note that in the example he gave the question started the sentence, which meant there was only one em dash, so it was slightly less weird-looking.

[evan712.livejournal.com]

Was the quote you used intended to be as amusing as it was?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I claim innocence. :D

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Myself, I'd put it "After he was asked "What do you think about that?", Brian went off on a tirade."

I also use dashes to smooth over a lot of sounds-fine-in-conversation-but-creates-a-grammar-boggle-on-the-page issues.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Do I need to mock you for starting that sentence with "myself?" :D

Amen on the double-dashes, though, sister.

[doc-smiley.livejournal.com]

Myself is a word I use myself. :)

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

In my editing of, ahem, amateur writing found on the internet, I have seen all four of these formulations used, and more besides.

I agree with various others who claim that option 1 is most formally 'correct'. Reasonable arguments can be made for the use of options 2 or 3. (Option 2 in particular appeals to computer programmer type folks, so be aware of that bias.) Option 4 is an abomination, and seeing it used causes me to lose respect for the writer.