comma before implied clause [c. splice]: What’re you a psycho?

    • I'd use a comma in that remark even if it was uttered quickly. For me, commas are functional marks that help readers understand a sentence. I don't pay much attention to dramatic pauses, etc., when I use them in my own writing.
     
    owlman5 said:
    I'd use a comma in that remark even if it was uttered quickly. For me, commas are functional marks that help readers understand a sentence. I don't pay much attention to dramatic pauses, etc., when I use them in my own writing.
    Click to expand...

    Yes, I agree that that is what commas are used for. Are you saying, then, that without the comma in that line it's harder to understand what is being said there?
     
    You wouldn't utter the sentence with no pause. I'd want something stronger than a comma. What are you? A psycho? Or perhaps What are you - a psycho?
    You have a comma when you're addressing someone. What are you, John? I'm an Anglican.
     
    What're you a psycho without punctuation can be interpreted in two different ways:

    What! 'Re you a psycho?
    What're you? A psycho?

    Admittedly the difference in meaning is slight, but failure to indicate it is lazy. And impolite because it forces the reader to do the writer's work.
     
    Commas often don't actually indicate pauses, but changes of intonation. Even said fast, the wh-question 'what're you' has falling intonation on its last main word, 'you', but the tacked-on part 'a psycho' has rising intonation (as it's effectively a yes-no question in itself). A sentence without a comma would be read as a single intonation unit, which this sentence never is.
     
    Rabelaisian said:
    I don't think it can be the first one, because "what" and "are" have become a single unit in "what're."
    Click to expand...
    But that is still two syllables, and can be read with a minimal or non minimal space between them, even if written with no actual spaces. That seems to be the issue. It is obviously a transcription of a conversation, so the reader needs help on the pronunciation, spacing, tone etc.
     
    I've never seen what're. In any case, the are would be uttered as a separate, stressed syllable if anyone said this sentence: What are you? The sentence has an aggressive tone to it, unlike the matter-of-fact What are you doing tonight?, where the are would (or could) almost disappear.
     
    I hear "what're" quite often in many different questions in my part of the world, rhitagawr. As Rabelaisian mentioned, it sounds a lot like "wutter". This slurring of "what are" is particularly common in the speech of people who like to talk really fast.
     
    I agree I overstated my case. If, in a neutral tone of voice, I were asking a group of people in turn what they were individually, I'd probably neutralise the are and stress the you. If I were challenging someone, which is what Rabelaisian appears to be doing, I'd raise my voice and stress the are: What are you? Some kind of idiot?
     
    Keith Bradford said:
    What're you a psycho without punctuation can be interpreted in two different ways:
    1. What! 'Re you a psycho?
    2. What're you? A psycho?
    Admittedly the difference in meaning is slight, but failure to indicate it is lazy. And impolite because it forces the reader to do the writer's work.
    Click to expand...
    The reference to "psycho" alone indicates that this is not an attempt to write the most polished and scientific English, but an attempt to represent spoken English, with our without commenting on the speaker's grammatical imperfection; and standard English writing is always an inadequate tool for representing speech patterns accurately. I understand What're you a psycho? to represent the sentence spoken without breaks, and possibly, pace entangledbank, without changes of intonation. In my experience this can only mean option 2.
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top