Ellipsis

Ooops. That should've been in Writing Tips, sorry. Oh well.

Being an extensive ellipsis user, this is a question I have also asked myself... I have settled on number 3 - simply because I prefer the look of it! I think we writers should allow ourselves a bit of creative/aesthetic licence on such things; I noticed some time ago how, for example, Clive Barker seems to get away with this kind of shenanigans... 'Has your head just fallen off?,' he enquired.* ... and he seems none the worse for it! (*note the shameful use of question mark followed by comma) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

I'd go for three too, Ben. I haven't read up on it, but I would have thought using ellipsis negates the need for a comma in much the same way ending on an exclamation mark would. *However*, in this case, isn't the entire speech tag redundant? We know he's trailing off from the ellipsis. I was trying to think of why I've never queried this myself, and I just don't think I've ever followed an ellipsis with a speech tag. If someone's being cut off, a dash does the job better. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

This case was just an example, I wouldn't write a speech tag for the above. I only wrote it to illustrate my question Thing is, according to what I've read, the ellipsis IS three dots, therefore, any other punctuation should be written after it, eg: Hi . . . ! Hi . . . . Hi . . . , The four dots for the end of the middle example is correct, according to all internet sources I've seen.

'The four dots for the end of the middle example is correct, according to all internet sources I've seen.' Well, then your internet sources are operating contrary to every piece of published fiction I own. Putting aside whether grammarian prespcriptivists insist that it's correct to punctuate after the ellipsis, (and in my revised edition of Fowler's Modern English usage, they don't) in my humble opinion you just *shouldn't* - it looks dreadful and it's meaningless. Three is the one to go for, and anyone who does otherwise ought to be put in the stocks and pelted with hardback copies of Elements of Style.

That is why I asked the question. I have always always used three, and I was after other's opinion. Perhaps you should update wikipedia, Rokkit, although the part about stocks and pelting are probably not passable under their guidelines. I think it's true that books I own always use three - that is, after all, why I've always used three, but I shall check. A couple of my sources: From wiki: Ellipsis also refers to a rhetorical device in a story where the narrative skips over a scene, a form of anachrony where there is a chronological gap in the text. A good example is the phrase "Four years later...," which fills the screen after the first half of the movie Cast Away (2000). From somewhere else: Ellipses. The ellipsis (plural ellipses) is the mark that indicates the omission of quoted material, as in "Brevity is ... wit" (stolen shamelessly from an episode of "The Simpsons"). There are two things to note: first, most typing manuals prefer the periods to be spaced, thus: Brevity is . . . wit. (In electronic communication it's sometimes necessary to run them together, since line-wrap is unpredictable.) Second, and more important, is the number of periods. The ellipsis itself is three periods (always); it can appear next to other punctuation, including an end-of-sentence period (resulting in four periods). Use four only when the words on either side of the ellipsis make full sentences. You should never use fewer than three or more than four periods, with only a single exception: when entire lines of poetry are omitted in a block quotation, it's a common practice to replace them with a full line of spaced periods.

Being that the thorough editing of books seems to be going the way of the dodo (I have read several recent novels with glaring errors in the text), I'm not sure you need to worry yourself *too* much over an ellipsis, but I would go for Number Three as well, keeping in mind that there are sure to be exceptions!

I *heart* wikipedia, but for it's bizarro trove of triva, not for its accuracy. You've got to question the target audience of a site which has an article on Knuckles the Echidna that's longer than the articles on Echidnas, Shakespeare, and the Internal Combustion Engine combined,

“Oh, one last thing: if there's a difference, I want UK English NOT US English.” Of the many, many differences between the two, I don’t think one lies here, but I could be wrong. I say number three looks the most correct. I’ve never followed an ellipsis with any other type of punctuation, as I’ve always considered it to be a type of punctuation all on its own. Also, when trailing off, I use an ellipsis. When cutting off, I use a dash.

It's number one, but without the comma. The stops need to be spaced. Just my opinion.

>>> Also, when trailing off, I use an ellipsis. When cutting off, I use a dash. ... agreed! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

Ok settled on: . . . Thanks all.

What was this topic settled on? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

i use them on discussion boards a lot... 3 of them usually... i can't stop myself...

So do I ... and there should always be a space after the word and before the first ellip ... like that ...

... you see, it's a compulsion...

where's your gap ... slacker ...

I always do a word... then the ellipsis... then a gap... eliminates the danger of line-break-severance... ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

D'you know, having checked my dictionary-cum-thesaurus' (make your own jokes) style guide, I fear that . . . with punctuation (either a , or a .) added may be correct. Which makes me realise I may be in hock to Microsoft Word's own stylistic penchants. My angry pendantry feels like it's on considerably shakier ground now, but I'd still go for ... sans punctuation every time. Word automatically gathers the three full stops together when you type them. It looks much better. I feel this may be an example of sensible, legitimate language change.