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

[Rabelaisian]

“What’re you a psycho?"

If that's said quickly with no pause at all, is it okay not to have a comma after "you"?

Thanks.

Source: me.

 

[owlman5]

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.

 

[Rabelaisian]

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.

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?

 

[owlman5]

That's exactly what I'm saying, Rabelaisian.

 

[rhitagawr]

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.

 

[Keith Bradford]

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.

 

[entangledbank]

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]

What're you a psycho without punctuation can be interpreted in two different ways:

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

I don't think it can be the first one, because "what" and "are" have become a single unit in "what're."

 

[JulianStuart]

I don't think it can be the first one, because "what" and "are" have become a single unit in "what're."

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.

 

[ewie]

What are you - a psycho?

I'd use a dash

 

[rhitagawr]

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.

 

[Rabelaisian]

I've never seen what're.

I hear it all the time. It's quite common, colloquially, round these parts—sounded like "wutter."

 

[owlman5]

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.

 

[rhitagawr]

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?

 

[se16teddy]

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.

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.