I'm going to write one of my grammar manifestos! This has mixed me up for the longest time. I've always just accepted it but I've never understood it. Technically, it's orthography (where do those commas go?) and not grammar, but let's call it grammar. Every season or so I try to find an answer online, but there's never one I can find. I'm going to put what I think the answer is here, so that's one link for the googleweb. This is the type of line I'm looking at. It's dialog followed by a tag, and there's a comma after the verb: "The nachos are poisoned," he whispered, and died. It's that comma after whispered that confuses me. It's supposed to be there. Here is where someone disagrees, but trust me. Open a book that's been corrected by a nice editor and do a search. Here's "The Nickel Boys" from last year. “Mr. Loomis will finish processing you,” he said, and walked out. (pg 58) “Say what now? Guess I can smoke,” he said, and relit his cigar. (pg 226) “It’ll come back to me,” he said, and split to the bathroom. (pg 206) etc. But in a normal compound predicate (two verbs) there is no comma. If you add one, you screwed up. The grammar commandos will be sent to your writing compound. He ordered a second plate of nachos and downed his drink. (nice) He ordered a second plate of nachos, and downed his drink. (why, oh why?) What's strange is that that dialog compound predicate is an unusual compound predicate, and no one will explain why. There are many reasons why dialog brings such happiness to the reader. We've learned language as dialog, not as narration, so it's what we prefer. Dialog often contains shifts in voice between characters. (rhythm) Dialog is traditionally more informal than narration, which is a shift in tone. (rhythm) Dialog moves out of the narrator's POV and into the characters'. Shift in POV. (rhythm) Our default method of dialog is in OSV order. That's a shift in structure. (rhythm) There are others. If I had writing bona fides, I would write a book called "Rhythm: The Writing Superstructure." But I have no real authority--I'm self-taught--so nobody would buy it. I will say this though: That last method is why the comma is there. OSV: Object Subject Verb "Rosebud," he whispered. The object happens to be the spoken phrase. It's what is being whispered above, so in that sense it receives the action. This isn't the English norm. We prefer SVO order. SVO: Subject Verb Object. One of the reasons dialog breaks up narration so well is that it's written in a different structure. Readers enjoy shifting rhythms in writing. Any writing that fails to find a shifting rhythm is, by definition, monotonous. A lot of weak writing becomes monotonous in bursts. I'd argue that lack of rhythm is an amateur's most common failing. Anyway . . . OSV order is nice every now and then because it breaks the SVO monotony. Dialog is an easy way to do it. It's not the only reason for dialog. It's more of a nice bonus. (Words, with benefits.) Shifting the object leftward from SVO to OSV is also called left-dislocation. It emphasizes what has been shifted, because the shifted element is out of place. It's been singled out. That's why the dialog is on the left. Yes, it can stay on the right, but there's a reason why it usually doesn't. Emphasis. (I could enter an aside here about emphasis usually happening at the end of the sentence, but I won't.) Now, finally . . . the reason for the comma! The object is only attached to one verb. If it was attached to both, there would be no comma. "You'll pay for this!" he ranted and raved. (no comma) "You'll pay for this!" he ranted, and drew his 45. (comma) The comma moves the object away from the second verb. It's drawing a distinction between the verbs. I can't prove any of this, but I believe it to be true. Fin.
I have run into a few sentences with a compound predicate where ProWritingAid said I needed to get rid of it, but I felt the splice would help in the read. So I have been able to make two sentences and let the reader feel a full stop. Others I use ellipsis for a pause. Using.. ‘he said’ with a beat seems odd to me, but I see where you're coming from when you use ‘ranted and raved’ like they're married and ‘ranted, and drew his .45’ is like they're separated but still see each other.
Is it really a double predicate in spirit, though? To me, the dialogue tag is kind of its own thing, sitting extemporaneously away from the rest of the sentence, only there to identify a speaker before it gets out of the way of whatever else is going on.
I believe the dialog tag (said, asked, etc.) aims at the dialog as an object, and that's the point of that comma. Because this is possible: "Daddy, watch me!" Timmy screeched and pleaded. But this isn't: "Daddy, watch me!" Timmy screeched and promptly plummeted off the Royal Gorge Bridge. ( wrong, missing a comma, and sad ) The above needs a comma in middle, right after screeched, because Timmy cannot "screech and plummet" the dialog. But what's always confused me is this: Timmy screeched and promptly plummeted off the Royal Gorge Bridge. And that's fine. It's just a compound predicate. It could hold a stylistic comma, but almost anything can do that, so ignore that option. The point is, it's fine without the comma now. When the dialog is slipped in, the first verb (screeched) becomes transitive. It aims at an object, the dialog. The second verb doesn't use the dialog as an object and so it must be separated. This is what I've convinced myself of. I would REALLY like to know where an actual grammar text explains it though. Every time I look for dialog rules and comma usage, I get the standard boilerplate I already know. ("The period turns into a comma, you say? Really!") I mean, I know the comma fits in after the tag, because I've seen it a million times, but I've still never heard an authority explain why. If I ever find it in an actual grammar book, I'll post it here.
I think you almost have to consider a dialogue tag to be its own part of speech. At least on the phraseology level. It goes its own things with its own rules and almost ignores all the other phrases around it. I get that it's a verb by definition, but it has a unique job and is only used in very specific situations. Really only to attribute quoted dialogue, which doesn't happen much outside of fiction.
I don't think it's wrong. It implies that the spoken words and the screech are two different utterances.
Okay. I didn't mean for you to read it that way. I guess you can read that as a pure action beat. Here, I'll get rid of the exclam. It doesn't make as much sense, so I'll change the verb too. "Daddy, watch me," Timmy whined [missing comma] and promptly plummeted off the Royal Gorge Bridge. That's what's always driven me nuts. Do a search through your favorite author's works and you'll see that comma always lands there, but no one will say why. At least I've never been told. If the dialog wasn't in front, there wouldn't be a comma. It would just be a compound predicate and you just roll straight through those. (Unless you have more than 2 verbs, I guess.) So my theory is that the line is actually this: [[ "Daddy, watch me," Timmy whined ]] , and promptly plummeted off the Royal Gorge Bridge. << ---- OSV order, right to left motion [comma] SVO order, left to right motion ------- >> And the point of the comma is to prevent this interpretation: [[ "Daddy, watch me," Timmy whined and promptly plummeted ]] Because you can't plummet dialog. Both verbs shouldn't look to the left. I believe it has to do with the motion of the sentence. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I've been thinking of going to the Royal Gorge Bridge and riding the zipline. I wouldn't warn my family. I'd just do it "out of the blue." (Really I would have been psyching myself up for weeks.) I think this will cause them great stress, and I'm delighted by that. In that moment, I will be super appreciated. This is my theory, haha. I'd be the one terrified, but it would be worth it for the laughs. (If I fall, I've left the important billing passwords on a pad by the computer.)
