Skip to main content

Pouring your heart out and bottling it up: Idioms for showing and not showing emotions

Pouring your heart out and bottling it up: Idioms for showing and not showing emotions

This post looks at idioms and phrasal verbs in the area of expressing emotions openly or suppressing them within.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Starting with idioms that convey something about showing feelings, if you make no secret of your feelings on a particular subject, you do not try to hide them: He makes no secret of his contempt for the former Prime Minister.

If you pour your heart out, you talk to someone emotionally, for a long time, telling them all about how you feel: She poured her heart out about how difficult life was at home.

To let off steam is to express strong feelings that you have been controlling for a while: I’d had the most frustrating time in the meeting and needed to let off steam.

Someone who wears their heart on their sleeve habitually makes their feelings obvious, making no attempt to hide them: You know what Tom is like – he wears his heart on his sleeve.

And what about idioms for not showing emotions? When someone is determined not to appear upset or disappointed, even though they feel it, we say they put on a brave face, or put a brave face on it: She seemed fairly cheerful but I suspect she was putting on a brave face. / I had to put a brave face on it for the kids.

If you get a grip (on yourself), you try hard to control your emotions and behave calmly, especially when you are very angry or sad: Come on, get a grip! / I was furious, but I had a meeting to attend so I had to get a grip on myself.

Moving on to phrasal verbs in this area, there are a few that convey the idea of trying not to show feelings of sadness or anger, for example hold in: She’d been unhappy for a long time, but holding it in for the kids’ sake.

If someone fights back or holds back tears, they try hard not to cry: He fought back tears as he walked behind his father’s coffin. 

Someone who bottles up feelings such as anger and sadness, stops themselves from showing them to other people for a long time: He never dealt with the grief – just bottled it up for years.

Meanwhile, if someone’s face or manner gives them away, it shows how they really feel, even though they are trying to hide it: She pretends she’s not interested in him, but her interest when his name is mentioned gives her away. / His eyes gave nothing away.

When was the last time you ‘let off steam’? Perhaps you’d like to say in the comments below.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Trinity: Why It Really Mattered

Trinity: Why It Really Mattered

As the much-anticipated Oppenheimer movie continues to draw people to the theater by the thousands, it’s a great moment to explore the real-life events and scientific achievements that shaped its gripping narrative. This article by the World War II Museum of New Orleans goes back to the first-ever detonation of a nuclear device.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

While most people are familiar with the names of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” as the atomic weapons used over Japan, what they may not be familiar with was how different the respective technologies of each bomb were and why this difference mattered. 

The Trinity atomic explosion in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, was one of humanity’s most significant scientific achievements. The accession of atomic power in the form of fission is a testament to human ingenuity, technical acumen, and intellectual prowess. At the time, production of such a capability could only be accomplished by the United States. Delivered by Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers on August 6 and 9, 1945, use of atomic weapons was a symbolic crescendo at the end of the US Army Air Forces’ strategic bombing campaign. To some, these atomic events were seen as retributive justice for the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor a few years earlier. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined with other events, helped convince Emperor Hirohito that the Japanese people would soon have to “endure the unendurable and suffer what is insufferable.” 

Such technology was at the very cutting edge of scientific endeavor. But before these atomic attacks occurred, the weapon designs had to be tested. The narrative of the Trinity test near Alamogordo, New Mexico, is often misinterpreted in its importance. Many of the texts and descriptions addressing the end of the Pacific war read as if the New Mexico test was the culminating event for the Manhattan Project, proving atomic weapons were feasible. While that is not necessarily inaccurate, therein lies the misperception. While most people are familiar with the names of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” as the atomic weapons used over Japan, they may not know how different the respective technologies of each bomb were and why this difference mattered. Little Boy used what was referred to as the “gun method” for creating a fissionable event, while Fat Man used the “implosion method.” While both weapons yielded roughly the same amount of explosive power, what often gets overlooked is that the difference between the two methods had huge implications regarding Pacific war planning. 

The need to drop multiple bombs was determined as early as 1944 by the Military Policy Committee comprised of Army, Navy, and civilian personnel. This organization served not only as an advisory board for Secretary of War Henry Stimson, but also helped bridge the gap between the military and the civilian scientists involved in the Manhattan Project. The multiple weapons approach was initially proposed by Navy representative Rear Admiral William Pursell, who suggested that the use of two or more weapons would be required. The first one would demonstrate the power of the bomb, serving as a warning.  A second bomb would then let the enemy know that the United States had more of these weapons available and that an atomic event was not a singular capability. With multiple strikes, the Japanese would receive a “one-two punch,” causing more angst within the Chrysanthemum Court. Using this approach, the United States needed not just one bomb but a “stockpile” of atomic weapons. With the technology still only speculative, requiring the nation to have multiple atomic weapons available was a tall order.  

The “Trinity” bomb located atop the test tower in the New Mexico Desert. Simply referred to as “the Gadget,” it was a test of the implosion design using plutonium-239. (US Government photo)

Little Boy used a uranium-235 (U-235) slug that traveled down a converted artillery tube, striking a larger sphere of the same substance. Upon contact, an internal initiator released free neutrons simultaneously, creating a critical event resulting in an explosion. While a simple design, one of the problems scientists faced was finding enough U-235. Uranium is a rare earth element that exists largely in a natural state of U-238. Only about 0.7 percent of natural uranium is in the form of U-235 and was available solely in micro quantities. As a result, manmade U-235 had to be extracted from tons of available U-238. Separating the two isotopes was a slow and laborious process done largely with over 1,000 Y-12 “Calutrons” at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Even with this massive effort, the amount of U-235 produced was barely sufficient for technicians working at the Los Alamos Scientific Lab (LASL) in northern New Mexico. While physicists needed U-235 for their own lab experiments, the uranium-based bomb used up to 140 pounds of the isotope (85 for the target and 55 for the projectile), of which only about 20 pounds became fissionable. As a result, the gun-type bomb was very inefficient with its use of a rare element that was already difficult to produce. 

The need for multiple weapons required even more U-238 and the transformation of it into U-235. With the slow refining process of the isotope, producing the speculated amount needed for another bomb could take as long as six months. This would hardly allow for the “one-two punch” specified by the Military Policy Committee. While some advocated for a demonstration at a barren location to warn the Japanese of the new weapon, the suggestion was rejected for several reasons. First, given the speculative nature of the new technology, if it failed it would be a major embarrassment. Second, if successful, the Japanese may still reject the event as a kind of scientific trick. Third, and more importantly, if successful, the United States had now shot its bolt regarding available U-235.

However, another method for creating a fissionable event was also possible. The basis for this second method was through use of another isotope, plutonium-239 (Pu-239). Physicists determined that Pu-239 was slightly more prone to fission than U-235, which also made it an attractive source for ignition. A largely manmade element that is extremely rare naturally, Pu-239 could be created by bombarding U-238 with neutrons or through a chemical treatment process. Using either of these processes, scientists could more readily produce Pu-239 than they could U-235. In addition to the relative ease of isotope production, significantly less Pu-239 (approximately 13 pounds) was needed for a possible fissionable event. While actual amounts of the fissionable materials required were still speculative, the apparent smaller amount of Pu-239 needed was a boon. Furthermore, given its relative ease of production compared to U-235, developing a plutonium-based weapon was even more attractive. 

Pu-239 could not be made fissionable in the same manner, though, as U-235. Fission for the plutonium-based bomb required the implosion method. Instead of sending a slug of the material into a target, a plutonium sphere could be made super critical if it was compressed equally from all directions. To compress the plutonium sphere, it was surrounded by a complex array of explosive Baratol with accompanying lenses that focused the blast inward. The Baratol was set off by 32 separate detonators that all had to fire simultaneously with a polonium/beryllium initiator providing free electrons. If all the detonators and the initiator fired as planned, the compressed plutonium sphere would in turn go “super critical.” If the initiators did not fire at the same time, an asymmetric force levied on the plutonium core would only yield a large conventional explosion and fail to create a fissionable event.  

Los Alamos head J. Robert Oppenheimer “froze” the design of the uranium-based bomb in February 1945, but further design for the plutonium device continued into the spring and summer. When Oppenheimer “froze” the general design of the plutonium weapon in March, additional refinement of the Fat Man design still took up much of the time for the personnel working at the LASL. However, implosion asymmetry issues were successfully solved by April. While both bombs were indeed science experiments, the physicists and technicians determined that a full test of the gun-type bomb was not required. Field experiments done in late 1944 had already determined the viability of the design. Not only had then been able to verify the potential results in the lab and with smaller explosions, but they could scarcely afford to expend what U-235 they had been able to extract. 

Given these considerations, the Trinity event validated only the implosion design. This initial implosion device was referred to by LASL personnel simply as “the gadget.” This test of the gadget was important was for several reasons. First, it would determine where a fissionable event with Pu-239 was workable given the design challenges. Second, if successful and given the relative ease of production of the isotope, America could now produce multiple atomic weapons creating a stockpile of sorts. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the United States would quickly have multiple bombs to provide the “one-two punch” mandated by the Military Policy Committee. The successful Trinity explosion meant that not only did the United States have two viable weapons and designs, but it could also easily make more bombs should that be required. 

The implosion design being hauled up the test tower in July 1945. (US Army photo)

In the days following the Trinity explosion, President Harry S. Truman attended the Potsdam Conference on the outskirts of Berlin. Knowing the results of the New Mexico tests, Truman met with other Allied leaders and drafted the “Potsdam Declaration,” specifically calling on the Japanese to surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction.” While the Trinity test validated the use of plutonium and the concept of implosion, it gave, more importantly, the United States a notional stockpile. With the possibility of multiple atomic weapons, the United States could now execute a “rain of ruin” on the Japanese homeland that was indeed unparalleled.  

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Trinity: Why It Really Mattered

Trinity: Why It Really Mattered

As the much-anticipated Oppenheimer movie continues to draw people to the theater by the thousands, it’s a great moment to explore the real-life events and scientific achievements that shaped its gripping narrative. This article by the World War II Museum of New Orleans goes back to the first-ever detonation of a nuclear device.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

While most people are familiar with the names of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” as the atomic weapons used over Japan, what they may not be familiar with was how different the respective technologies of each bomb were and why this difference mattered. 

The Trinity atomic explosion in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, was one of humanity’s most significant scientific achievements. The accession of atomic power in the form of fission is a testament to human ingenuity, technical acumen, and intellectual prowess. At the time, production of such a capability could only be accomplished by the United States. Delivered by Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers on August 6 and 9, 1945, use of atomic weapons was a symbolic crescendo at the end of the US Army Air Forces’ strategic bombing campaign. To some, these atomic events were seen as retributive justice for the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor a few years earlier. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined with other events, helped convince Emperor Hirohito that the Japanese people would soon have to “endure the unendurable and suffer what is insufferable.” 

Such technology was at the very cutting edge of scientific endeavor. But before these atomic attacks occurred, the weapon designs had to be tested. The narrative of the Trinity test near Alamogordo, New Mexico, is often misinterpreted in its importance. Many of the texts and descriptions addressing the end of the Pacific war read as if the New Mexico test was the culminating event for the Manhattan Project, proving atomic weapons were feasible. While that is not necessarily inaccurate, therein lies the misperception. While most people are familiar with the names of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” as the atomic weapons used over Japan, they may not know how different the respective technologies of each bomb were and why this difference mattered. Little Boy used what was referred to as the “gun method” for creating a fissionable event, while Fat Man used the “implosion method.” While both weapons yielded roughly the same amount of explosive power, what often gets overlooked is that the difference between the two methods had huge implications regarding Pacific war planning. 

The need to drop multiple bombs was determined as early as 1944 by the Military Policy Committee comprised of Army, Navy, and civilian personnel. This organization served not only as an advisory board for Secretary of War Henry Stimson, but also helped bridge the gap between the military and the civilian scientists involved in the Manhattan Project. The multiple weapons approach was initially proposed by Navy representative Rear Admiral William Pursell, who suggested that the use of two or more weapons would be required. The first one would demonstrate the power of the bomb, serving as a warning.  A second bomb would then let the enemy know that the United States had more of these weapons available and that an atomic event was not a singular capability. With multiple strikes, the Japanese would receive a “one-two punch,” causing more angst within the Chrysanthemum Court. Using this approach, the United States needed not just one bomb but a “stockpile” of atomic weapons. With the technology still only speculative, requiring the nation to have multiple atomic weapons available was a tall order.  

The “Trinity” bomb located atop the test tower in the New Mexico Desert. Simply referred to as “the Gadget,” it was a test of the implosion design using plutonium-239. (US Government photo)

Little Boy used a uranium-235 (U-235) slug that traveled down a converted artillery tube, striking a larger sphere of the same substance. Upon contact, an internal initiator released free neutrons simultaneously, creating a critical event resulting in an explosion. While a simple design, one of the problems scientists faced was finding enough U-235. Uranium is a rare earth element that exists largely in a natural state of U-238. Only about 0.7 percent of natural uranium is in the form of U-235 and was available solely in micro quantities. As a result, manmade U-235 had to be extracted from tons of available U-238. Separating the two isotopes was a slow and laborious process done largely with over 1,000 Y-12 “Calutrons” at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Even with this massive effort, the amount of U-235 produced was barely sufficient for technicians working at the Los Alamos Scientific Lab (LASL) in northern New Mexico. While physicists needed U-235 for their own lab experiments, the uranium-based bomb used up to 140 pounds of the isotope (85 for the target and 55 for the projectile), of which only about 20 pounds became fissionable. As a result, the gun-type bomb was very inefficient with its use of a rare element that was already difficult to produce. 

The need for multiple weapons required even more U-238 and the transformation of it into U-235. With the slow refining process of the isotope, producing the speculated amount needed for another bomb could take as long as six months. This would hardly allow for the “one-two punch” specified by the Military Policy Committee. While some advocated for a demonstration at a barren location to warn the Japanese of the new weapon, the suggestion was rejected for several reasons. First, given the speculative nature of the new technology, if it failed it would be a major embarrassment. Second, if successful, the Japanese may still reject the event as a kind of scientific trick. Third, and more importantly, if successful, the United States had now shot its bolt regarding available U-235.

However, another method for creating a fissionable event was also possible. The basis for this second method was through use of another isotope, plutonium-239 (Pu-239). Physicists determined that Pu-239 was slightly more prone to fission than U-235, which also made it an attractive source for ignition. A largely manmade element that is extremely rare naturally, Pu-239 could be created by bombarding U-238 with neutrons or through a chemical treatment process. Using either of these processes, scientists could more readily produce Pu-239 than they could U-235. In addition to the relative ease of isotope production, significantly less Pu-239 (approximately 13 pounds) was needed for a possible fissionable event. While actual amounts of the fissionable materials required were still speculative, the apparent smaller amount of Pu-239 needed was a boon. Furthermore, given its relative ease of production compared to U-235, developing a plutonium-based weapon was even more attractive. 

Pu-239 could not be made fissionable in the same manner, though, as U-235. Fission for the plutonium-based bomb required the implosion method. Instead of sending a slug of the material into a target, a plutonium sphere could be made super critical if it was compressed equally from all directions. To compress the plutonium sphere, it was surrounded by a complex array of explosive Baratol with accompanying lenses that focused the blast inward. The Baratol was set off by 32 separate detonators that all had to fire simultaneously with a polonium/beryllium initiator providing free electrons. If all the detonators and the initiator fired as planned, the compressed plutonium sphere would in turn go “super critical.” If the initiators did not fire at the same time, an asymmetric force levied on the plutonium core would only yield a large conventional explosion and fail to create a fissionable event.  

Los Alamos head J. Robert Oppenheimer “froze” the design of the uranium-based bomb in February 1945, but further design for the plutonium device continued into the spring and summer. When Oppenheimer “froze” the general design of the plutonium weapon in March, additional refinement of the Fat Man design still took up much of the time for the personnel working at the LASL. However, implosion asymmetry issues were successfully solved by April. While both bombs were indeed science experiments, the physicists and technicians determined that a full test of the gun-type bomb was not required. Field experiments done in late 1944 had already determined the viability of the design. Not only had then been able to verify the potential results in the lab and with smaller explosions, but they could scarcely afford to expend what U-235 they had been able to extract. 

Given these considerations, the Trinity event validated only the implosion design. This initial implosion device was referred to by LASL personnel simply as “the gadget.” This test of the gadget was important was for several reasons. First, it would determine where a fissionable event with Pu-239 was workable given the design challenges. Second, if successful and given the relative ease of production of the isotope, America could now produce multiple atomic weapons creating a stockpile of sorts. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the United States would quickly have multiple bombs to provide the “one-two punch” mandated by the Military Policy Committee. The successful Trinity explosion meant that not only did the United States have two viable weapons and designs, but it could also easily make more bombs should that be required. 

The implosion design being hauled up the test tower in July 1945. (US Army photo)

In the days following the Trinity explosion, President Harry S. Truman attended the Potsdam Conference on the outskirts of Berlin. Knowing the results of the New Mexico tests, Truman met with other Allied leaders and drafted the “Potsdam Declaration,” specifically calling on the Japanese to surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction.” While the Trinity test validated the use of plutonium and the concept of implosion, it gave, more importantly, the United States a notional stockpile. With the possibility of multiple atomic weapons, the United States could now execute a “rain of ruin” on the Japanese homeland that was indeed unparalleled.  

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Tightening Your Belt and Wearing the Trousers: Clothes Idioms

Tightening Your Belt and Wearing the Trousers: Clothes Idioms

This post looks into the linguistic realm of fashion-related expressions, delving into the origins and meanings behind some commonly used phrases. From “tightening your belt” to “wearing the trousers,” it unravels the threads of language to discover how these idioms have woven themselves into our everyday conversations.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Let’s start with ‘belt’. If you have achieved something, such as a qualification, a success or work experience, you can say you now have it under your belt:

It felt great to finally have a win under my belt.

Once you’ve got some experience under your belt, you’ll be in a better position to apply for jobs.

If you make an effort to spend less money, you can say that you tighten your belt:

Like a lot of small companies, we’re having to tighten our belts.

Meanwhile, a comment (often a personal one) that is described as below the belt is unkind and unfair:

That comment about his height was a bit below the belt.

Moving on to a different garment, in a relationship, the person who is said to wear the trousers (UK)/wear the pants (US) is the one who is in control, making the big decisions.

Now to footwear, the word ‘shoes’ features in two nice idioms that are both related to other people’s experiences. You say you wouldn’t want to be in someone’s shoes, meaning that you would not like to be in their situation:

I wouldn’t want to be in Sophie’s shoes when James finds out what she’s done.

If you were giving a friend advice, you might start by using the idiom If I were in your shoes, meaning ‘If I were in your situation’:

If I were in your shoes, I think I’d call Zoe and explain what’s happened.

Two other ‘shoe’ idioms relate to roles at work. If you step into or fill someone’s shoes, you start to do their job after they have stopped doing it:

There’s certainly no shortage of candidates willing to step into the manager’s shoes.

If someone replaces a person at work who has done an excellent job (especially in a public role), you might say they have big shoes to fill or Those are big shoes to fill:

Whoever steps in as the replacement coach will have big shoes to fill.

It’s going to be tough for whoever takes over. Those are big shoes to fill.

‘Boots’ also feature in some nice idioms. In UK English, if your heart is in your boots you feel very sad or worried, often about something that is going to happen, and if you are shaking or quaking in your boots, you are very frightened or nervous. (This idiom is often used negatively.)

My heart’s in my boots at the prospect of returning to the office.

They won’t be exactly quaking in their boots at the prospect of playing England.

In British English, we might describe someone who is strong both physically and emotionally (as) tough as old boots:

She’ll be fine. She’s tough as old boots!

We’ll finish with two ‘sock’ idioms. A person who says to someone Put a sock in it! is rudely telling them to be quiet:

Hey, put a sock in it, will you? I’m trying to sleep!

Finally, in UK English, if you tell someone they need to pull their socks up, you mean they must start to work or study harder because their current performance isn’t good enough:

This is your exam year so you’re really going to have to pull your socks up.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Tightening Your Belt and Wearing the Trousers: Clothes Idioms

Tightening Your Belt and Wearing the Trousers: Clothes Idioms

This post looks into the linguistic realm of fashion-related expressions, delving into the origins and meanings behind some commonly used phrases. From “tightening your belt” to “wearing the trousers,” it unravels the threads of language to discover how these idioms have woven themselves into our everyday conversations.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Let’s start with ‘belt’. If you have achieved something, such as a qualification, a success or work experience, you can say you now have it under your belt:

It felt great to finally have a win under my belt.

Once you’ve got some experience under your belt, you’ll be in a better position to apply for jobs.

If you make an effort to spend less money, you can say that you tighten your belt:

Like a lot of small companies, we’re having to tighten our belts.

Meanwhile, a comment (often a personal one) that is described as below the belt is unkind and unfair:

That comment about his height was a bit below the belt.

Moving on to a different garment, in a relationship, the person who is said to wear the trousers (UK)/wear the pants (US) is the one who is in control, making the big decisions.

Now to footwear, the word ‘shoes’ features in two nice idioms that are both related to other people’s experiences. You say you wouldn’t want to be in someone’s shoes, meaning that you would not like to be in their situation:

I wouldn’t want to be in Sophie’s shoes when James finds out what she’s done.

If you were giving a friend advice, you might start by using the idiom If I were in your shoes, meaning ‘If I were in your situation’:

If I were in your shoes, I think I’d call Zoe and explain what’s happened.

Two other ‘shoe’ idioms relate to roles at work. If you step into or fill someone’s shoes, you start to do their job after they have stopped doing it:

There’s certainly no shortage of candidates willing to step into the manager’s shoes.

If someone replaces a person at work who has done an excellent job (especially in a public role), you might say they have big shoes to fill or Those are big shoes to fill:

Whoever steps in as the replacement coach will have big shoes to fill.

It’s going to be tough for whoever takes over. Those are big shoes to fill.

‘Boots’ also feature in some nice idioms. In UK English, if your heart is in your boots you feel very sad or worried, often about something that is going to happen, and if you are shaking or quaking in your boots, you are very frightened or nervous. (This idiom is often used negatively.)

My heart’s in my boots at the prospect of returning to the office.

They won’t be exactly quaking in their boots at the prospect of playing England.

In British English, we might describe someone who is strong both physically and emotionally (as) tough as old boots:

She’ll be fine. She’s tough as old boots!

We’ll finish with two ‘sock’ idioms. A person who says to someone Put a sock in it! is rudely telling them to be quiet:

Hey, put a sock in it, will you? I’m trying to sleep!

Finally, in UK English, if you tell someone they need to pull their socks up, you mean they must start to work or study harder because their current performance isn’t good enough:

This is your exam year so you’re really going to have to pull your socks up.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Do you ALWAYS put a comma after (he, she, or they) said?

Do you ALWAYS put a comma after (he, she, or they) said?

FROM CMOS: Quotations and Dialogue

Q. Can you clarify when a comma should be used before a quote, especially following the word read or said? For example, “Newspaper headlines read, ‘People Are Angry’ and ‘Crime Abounds’” versus “Newspaper headlines read ‘People Are Angry’ and ‘Crime Abounds.’”

A. The use of a comma to introduce a quotation is generally a matter of tradition rather than strict logic. That is, it is optional grammatically, but in most contexts readers expect it to follow said and various other dialogue tags. A comma indicates that the quoted material is seen as syntactically independent from the surrounding text. A quote that is seen more clearly as the direct object of a speaking verb, however, does not need a comma: He wrote “Yes” in large letters.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

NOTE: syntactically independent???? Wait, what?

From Webster-dictionary.org: https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/syntactically%20independent#:~:text=Adj.,joking%20apart’%20are%20syntactically%20independent%22: “syntactically_independent” – standing apart from a normal syntactical relation with other sentence elements;”in `joking apartwe need to go now‘ the words `joking apart‘ are syntactically independent

Thesaurus.net adds: When it comes to writing or speaking, the term “syntactically independent” refers to a phrase or clause that can stand alone as a complete sentence without the need for additional context. 

MORE FROM CMOS

Q. I recently became aware that many sources insist one absolutely must use a comma after “said” to punctuate sentences like this one: She looked up and said, “Hi.” Is this really a universal rule? The more I look into it, the more I feel I’ve slipped into an alternate universe.

A. According to CMOS 13.40, common one-word utterances can usually be introduced without the help of a comma—and without quotation marks or an initial capital:

She looked up and said hi.

We told her no.

Don’t ask me why.

But when such words are presented as direct discourse—as in the dialogue of a novel or story—they are usually placed in quotation marks and set off by a comma, like any other quoted words of dialogue:

She looked up and said, “Hi.”

“Hi,” I replied, a little embarrassed by the echo.

This convention suggests that the word or words in quotation marks were literally spoken as written. But it can be awkward to put the speaker ahead of the quotation. To smooth things out, try reversing the order:

“Hi,” she said, looking up.

For some additional considerations, see “Is a Comma Needed to Introduce Dialogue” in Fiction+ at CMOS Shop Talk.

A QUICK QUIZ

Do you ALWAYS put a comma after (he, she, they) said? Do  you think a comma is needed after “said” in these instances?

So one afternoon—this was about the middle of September 1939—Mr. G. says, Where is—where is Castleton? John Castleton. He looked around. Well, I raised my hand. He said, I want you to stay after the other gentlemen leave.

Yes, there should be a comma after said, “I want you to stay. . . ” needs to stand alone from the rest of the text.

No need for a comma, it’s not a direct quote, “I want you to stay” is the object of He said.

So Mr. G. sent me over to Whitson’s Tool and Supply on West Xth Street. And I went up there, and I talked. I said, I’d like to see the president, Mr. A. 

Yes, there should be a comma after said, it’s a quote.

No, because he says I talked, I said I’d like to see the president. There should be a comma after I talked.

I got a letter from the United States government. It says, You have been selected. I got it from the draft board, of course.

Nope, don’t need a comma. This isn’t a quote or a conversation

Yep, definitely needs a comma. If “says” is used, it’s a quote.

I don’t know why he picked on me, but anyway, I went up to his desk, and he said, Well, there’s a place called Whitson’s Tool and Supply. I know this gentleman very well—the president. He said to send only one person over that he thought would fit the job over here. 

Yes there are two “he said” statements, and the first one is syntactically independent–it needs to stand out.

No, these aren’t direct quotes, Well there’s a place called White Tool and Supply is the object of said.

And I called the draft board, and I said, Well, I got this letter. She says, Yeah, well, that’s a letter. You’re going to be drafted. But I said, Well, how soon? Well, just go ahead and live your life the way you’ve been living. What? Well, we’ll let you know. Well, okay, So I went out. I bought a couple of more suits; I bought some more shoes, and, oh, everything was lovely. 
*

No. Since there’s no “She said” or “I said” at other places, no need for commas. It’s all just a recap of a conversation.

Yes, because when a phrase is prefaced with said or says, it should be followed by a comma.

Now, this—well, this goes right up into 19—the end of 1943 almost, I would say. And I had—let’s see. I was a corporal at that time. They made me a corporal technician because the corporals rating had to stay with the company, but they said, (1) You’ll be a corporal technician, which was okay. I said, (2) I didn’t care. The money’s the same. 

1A. No, because it isn’t syntactically independent if he follows it with which was okay.

1B. Yes, I’m a traditionalist. When you use the word said, follow with a comma.

2A. Yes, because it’s a quote.

2B. It’s not a quote, he’s telling you his reaction. “I didn’t care. The money was the same.”

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.