Is there any alternative punctuation to eliminate the ambiguity between the vocative comma and the list comma in a sentence like "John, Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier." The idea is that I'm speaking to John.
7
-
5You're purely looking for punctuation rather than rephrasing or ways of speaking it out loud? There are a variety of forms of address from "Hey John" to "O John".– Stuart FFeb 14 at 11:21
-
2@StuartF I think your point is salient, as I feel like the syntax isn't the sole source of confusion here. Try saying it out loud: "John, Paul, George and Ringo arrived earlier." I suspect that even John might be momentarily confused by such a statement.– HimFeb 14 at 15:19
-
1Be aware that the sentence could also mean: you are addressing John and Paul. Ambiguity is ubiquitous in English, it's uninteresting and unsurprising.– FattieFeb 14 at 15:53
-
6In speech, the difference is carried by intonation. In writing, if you keep that structure, there is no way to tell...– LambieFeb 14 at 17:05
-
What kind of dialogue attribution are you using? Is it an option to say something such as: "John," she called out, "Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier." Or maybe, if no attribution can be used: "John." "Yes?" "Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier."– Brian TungFeb 15 at 18:34
|
Show 2 more comments
6 Answers
If you think about the conditions under which such an utterance might occur, and then think about the intonation with which it might be delivered, you can probably come up with some suitable punctuation.
John—Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier. (neutral, by-the-way, matter-of-fact)
John! Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier. (exasperation, elation)
John? Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier. (concern, consternation)
-
1
-
I'd read the first one as three people, the first of them named "John-Paul". Yes, it's an em-dash, not a hyphen, but on a quick read it's not obviously different. Feb 15 at 14:30
The standard "comma's comma" in English is a semicolon. A modern equivalent for this which is becoming increasingly common is a double dash.
Examples:
John; Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier.
John--Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier.
However, punctuation in a specific case like this is tricky. The semicolon may appear like a typo. The use of a full colon may be an option.
John: Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier.
However, this would not work in a dialogue where the speakers were being identified in this fashion.
A century ago, a colon+hyphen might have been used. This usage is virtually extinct today, but this is a case where it may have been quite helpful.
John:--Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier.
My personal preference in this situation would be to go with the double-dash option, i.e. "John--Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier."
-
1
-
1@alphabet Perhaps so, but whenever lists of lists are involved, it becomes quite useful.– BiblasiaFeb 14 at 7:18
-
6Double dashes are even more outdated than this use of the semicolon. What you’ve actually written, though, are double hyphens, which have absolutely no use at all anywhere. Standard practice would be to use a single dash (not a hypen) – either an en dash surrounded by spaces (generally preferred in British English) or an em dash without spaces (generally preferred in American English). Feb 14 at 11:55
-
3The semicolon is unheard of and would never be used in the situation asked about.– FattieFeb 14 at 15:47
-
2
Dion--
I would just rephrase it, and put the vocative at the end: Paul, George, and Ringo are arriving later, John.
-
1"Real writers rewrite to avoid the problem," to quote the IBMTEXT discussion's mantra.– keshlamFeb 15 at 6:04
-
This is the real answer. If there is no perfect punctuation solution to the problem, rewrite. That's what you get paid for.– RobustoFeb 16 at 22:10
-
Robusto. That's philosophically challenging. The real answer to the question is ... the real answer to the actual question. Sure, one should add a footnote "but you wouldn't do that, you'd do what Charles says."– FattieFeb 19 at 16:22
-
In addition to the options that Tinfoil Hat suggested, the most natural punctuation here might be a colon:
John: George, Paul and Ringo arrived earlier.
In a newspaper headline, this would mean something different, that John was the one who said the others arrived earlier. If it’s clear in context who is speaking, though, this works fine.
-
1If it means what you say, the inverted commas for speech marks would be before George, not before John.– TimFeb 17 at 9:49
Answering the actual question.
Is there any alternative punctuation to eliminate the ambiguity
The two most common ways to do it:
John ... Paul, George and Ringo [etc].
And don't forget this option:
John. Paul, George and Ringo [etc].
-
1I would recommend against this, as ellipsis is supposed to mean that there omitted words.– DavislorFeb 15 at 2:05
-
4Ellipsis is ... well, sometimes used to express a pause rather than an omission.– keshlamFeb 15 at 6:03
-
1@Davislor it's not. It's only used now to mean a pause, breath, thinking space. The original meaning is gone. The new meaning is probably used around 100,000:1 over the old meaning. (Unfortunately) language changes. I'm still trying to convince people to use apocryphal the correct way, rather than the incorrect new meaning.– FattieFeb 15 at 11:31
-
4An ellipsis with spaces on both sides very much looks like it is marking omitted words. If it's only indicating a pause then it should not have a space on the left. IMO. Feb 15 at 11:42
-
1
In writing: "Paul, George, and Ringo arrived earlier, John."
In speech, the difference is carried by intonation. In writing, if you keep that structure, there is no way to tell...
And vocative comma does not exist. :)
The other punctuation given in other answers (colons etc.) is simply not used to designate a speaker in contemporary writing.
