It's not a rule. It's a grammatical necessity. The "oh" part of the sentence is an independent clause, and those are set off by commas. It should be "Oh, my God." Take a look at the difference between these sentences: "Funny, that. John always did like his beer." "Funny, that John always did like his beer." "Funny that John always did like his beer." See what a missing comma here or there can do to a sentence? The first "that" is an independent clause. They're always set off by commas, but in this case the "John" part afterwards is a new sentence. A good way to know if a independent clause makes sense is to read everything outside the commas and see if it reads properly: So, if it were written "Funny, that, John always did like his beer", it would read "Funny John always did like his beer. Grammatically incorrect, I think you'll agree. The next sentence reads as "that John". That's something people say a lot: "That Bill". "That Jack fellow". The sentence basically reads: "It's funny, that John always did like his beer." The final sentence reads: "It's funny that John always did like his beer." Now it's just funny that John likes his beer. My point is: Commas make or break sentences. It's not a matter of whether they're "going out". They're not. They provide much-needed clarity. Without them, reading becomes a nightmare. I've just one more example that will show you how much bad punctuation can skew interpretation to unbelievable levels: Dear John: I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can forever be happy--will you let me be yours? Harriet. Dear John: I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can forever be happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Harriet. It's amazing what a misplaced full-stop here and a misplaced comma there can do to a sentence.
For the purpose of character reflection, I've seen "Ohmygod!" used to emphasize that the character uses it as a single-breath exclamation. And I've seen "Oh. My. God." done to emphasize the opposite. But neither of those would be something a good writer would likely repeat very often in the same manuscript, because "Oh, my God!" is a grammatical, perfectly acceptable, understandable, typical way that phrase would ordinarily be read and completely understood as an exclamation. The reader (also ordinarily) doesn't need to be artificially told (through ungrammatical punctuation or otherwise) how that or any other phrase is spoken, so long as there's enough context for the reader to figure it out for himself. (That "show, don't tell" thing.) As a reader, I'd get tired pretty quickly of quirky [mis]usages, because they'd stand out repeatedly as both tiresome and wrong.
You're preaching to the choir, Daedalus. . . I agree with everything you said - except for the "Oh, my god" bit. The question, as I understand it, is about being grammatically correct vs true to your character's dialect. Maia pretty much settled the question for me. I'll write it "Oh, my god" because that's standard. . . However, it does denote a pause which doesn't exist (in many dialects), and that, my friend, seems pointless and misleading to me, in the context of character dialect. Your post was all about how dodgy punctuation changes the meaning of a sentence or confuses the reader. Tell me how "Oh my god!" without a comma is not an exclamation, or how it would confuse the average reader. I agree that a truly awful dialect can be a nightmare to read, (especially when deliberately misplaced punctuation really does change the meaning of a sentence) but that's where common sense comes in. . . Molly, I pretty much agree with you. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, if truth be told. I do believe what I've said here, but it's not like it really matters either way lol.
The thing about "Oh, my God" is that most people read it without pausing. They know that the phrase is said as one, and therefore their mind unconsciously assimilates the phrase and says it as one. Much like the natural pause that people take in certain sentences. For example: "Four hours later Jack returned to his apartment." "Four hours later, Jack returned to his apartment." There is a pause after "later", but it's so minute that the comma can be omitted in certain cases. There are exceptions: "Four hours after Jack began looking for his coat." "Four hours after, Jack began looking for his coat." Notice the difference in those two sentences compared to the earlier example? The first one happens after four hours of Jack looking for his coat. The second one, though, is different. It's referring to something else. Four hours after some event, Jack began to look for his coat. I realise I'm rambling, but you get the point. There are natural pauses and natural phrases that people don't pause at even though they contain commas. "Oh, my God" is one of them.
I'm sorry, but I read "Oh, my god" with a pause. So it will never be in one continuous breath. And I will always read it with a pause, whether you disagree with it or not.
You read it that way, and I guessing because of that, everyone else must read it that way too. Quit generalising. Take a look at a published novel and you'll see that there's always a comma in that phrase. Then, listen to the abridged version and see how the reader says it. Guarantee you s/he will omit the pause.
People also write "Omigod!" That is clearly distinct from both "Oh my God!" and "Oh, my God!" Whether or not it is stictly correct, I think that "Oh my God" conveys a different enough message from "Oh, my God!" that either one is defensible.
Hey, nobody likes a good old debate more then I do, Kas! I think in terms of both publishability and readability when it comes to making choices about language; but I can't think of too many examples where I'd opt for ungrammatical writing, per se. To your comment: "I agree that a truly awful dialect can be a nightmare to read, (especially when deliberately misplaced punctuation really does change the meaning of a sentence) but that's where common sense comes in. . ." Try transcribing the spoken word (which I've done for years with recorded oral histories and research interviews--often with folks using street language or English Language Learners, heavily accented speakers, and sometimes even folks with speech impediments). Trying to make the right choices about punctuation in order to deliver the actual meaning (via the transcriptionist's interpretation from listening to the entire conversation or interview) IS difficult, sometimes even impossible; and I've seen some bad choices made and have made my own share of ‘em, too. (Some turn out pretty funny unless you're being paid for accuracy.) I've found two things. One is that "correct" punctuation matters a lot--just like mamamaia's terrific little example illustrates. Correctness depends upon understanding the point and context; and there are a whole lot of English-speaking people I simply can't understand very well. But the second thing I discovered (which surprised me a lot) is that characteristic speech patterns (of someone from Maine or Augusta or New Orleans, or other countries, or even old folks or children, e.g.) are usually very easily revealed by peculiar word combinations and phrases they use (or don't) rather than actual (mis)pronunciation or dialect. Characteristic contractions help, too, and that's a perfectly acceptable, grammatically sound, sometimes creative option. But the particular words and how they're paired up with others in spoken language (English, I mean) will create a "characteristic" rhythm, flavor, and sound that I find more interesting and certainly more readable than phonetically-created words, and a whole lot better than creatively misused punctuation--especially if the writing isn't good enough to paint a crystal clear picture around it. I don't see any reason why ungrammatical language needs to be ungrammatically written, myself. I think it's pretty easily reflected in correctly spelled words, properly punctuated and juxtaposed in an ungrammatical way. And, ‘long as it's a character-building thing, that's fine. But I don't want to see anything used in a way that looks like the author doesn't know better (which means, to me, that the author better show me the beauty of this, and quickly--at least in the books that I buy).
You folks are making a mountain out of a molehill. Neither "Oh, my God!" nor "Oh my God" is going to get your manuscript rejected or accepted. If the rest of the story is compelling, and if the agent/publisher have a need for more writers in that genre, then that little phrase will be nothing more than a literary pimple to be popped by a resident grammar-Nazi at the publishing company. Shakespeare said it best . . . "Much Ado About Nothing".
the example may be a 'molehill' but the 'mountain' certainly does bear paying attention to, if one wants to give agents/editors the fewest number of 'pimples' needing to be dealt with... the fact remains that new writers whose work has significant amounts of individually 'minor' punctuation/grammar/syntax errors won't be as likely to snag an agent/publisher as those who take the time and have the ability to write without making any/many...
I agree with that completely. If I do make intentional 'mistakes' (and it's unlikely that I will) they will be very few and far between.
"Oh my God" would only be acceptable if it were written for a character who does not break between any of his words or sentences (in other words, periods, and other such punctuation is also omitted solely for the verbal effect). "Oh, my God" carries with it an inherent factor of surprise, or disbelief. To overlook that and the context in which it was used in favor of taking the phrase out of context because of a grammatically necessary comma is, I think, a sign of a bad reader — not a bad writer (yes, bad readers do exist). "Oh, my God." . . . is correct. I agree w/ Daedalus and mammamia.
"Oh, my, God." vs "Oh my, God." It's actually a colloquial phrase: "Oh my God." It removes the comma because of its colloquial nature. The correct grammar, if it were formal speech, would be: "Oh, my God." Because "my God" is a noun phrase, "my" being the modifier of the noun "God." And "oh" is an exclamation. "Oh, that's nice." "Oh, happy day!" But "Oh my God!" has left the realm of proper grammar and exists independently of correct usage because it is colloquial.
when it's written as dialog, it still has to have the comma, unless you stress its commaless 'colloquialism' nature by typing it like this: "Oh-my-god!"
