Forum: Author Hangout

I have a problem with using abbreviations like Mr. and Mrs. in dialogue;

"Hey, mister, throw me the ball."

"I saw Mr. Smith talking to Dr. Jones the other day."

That's the way I do it in dialogue.

That's the way I do it in dialogue.

Yes I've seen the abbreviation for titles like Mr. and Dr. frequently used by authors in dialogue.

What I'm curious about is, does the rule regarding not using abbreviations in dialogue (i.e. spelling out the word) apply to things like titles, which are typically abbreviated.

What I'm curious about is, does the rule regarding not using abbreviations in dialogue (i.e. spelling out the word) apply to things like titles, which are typically abbreviated.

Titles, like "Mr.", "Mrs." or "Dr." are a specific exception to the normal 'spell it as they say it' rule, since most people only use the terms automatically, so it's easier to understand, while losing nothing from the substitution.

It's similar to the 'spell out number under 100 exception. While it's better to spell out words, after a certain point, it quickly becomes unmanageable, so it's again a 'natural' exception and is easy to comprehend.

apply to things like titles, which are typically abbreviated

I guess it depends on the style guide you use.

I once researched it and what I wrote above is what I found. I just found this on a site talking about military ranks:

Sticking with CMoS and AP style, only capitalize ranks when used as a title with a name or as a name. Use lowercase when referring to the rank generically or collectively for a group.

"I spoke with Col. Jones today." (title is capitalized)
"I spoke with the sergeant today." (generic term even though referring to a specific person)
"Yes, sir, Admiral." (used as a proper name)
"We're meeting with several generals at the Pentagon today." (generic, collective)

But I think I remember something about not capitalizing Lt. because it could be Lieutenant or Leftenant. But I don't remember.

It sounds as it you are describing Sue and Su as 2 different names; rather than Su being a contraction of Sue. The names may sound the same, but it is no different than changing Sue to Jane.

Yeah, it's subtle, but we're not discussing 'names' but the people are adopting new 'personas', so while "Sue" is dismissive and argumentative, and "Jackie" is mild and overly forgiving, "Su" is a new persona encouraging the person to act differently, in this case, more measured, considering a person's positions before attacking them. While "Jack" allows the normally diminutive "Jackie" to suddenly start saying 'No' and not taking grief from anyone.

The story both are from are largely about how the various people surrounding the central character all evolve over time in response from his intuitive and largely unnoticed guidance.

But, my question was: how you properly spell-out a subtle difference in names that aren't audible?

By the way, "Miss" is decidedly not used in place of Ms., as it's the polar opposite (a fiercely independent woman who doesn't want to be treated as a naive 'unmarried' virgin).

But, my question was: how you properly spell-out a subtle difference in names that aren't audible?

By the way, "Miss" is decidedly not used in place of Ms., as it's the polar opposite (a fiercely independent woman who doesn't want to be treated as a naive 'unmarried' virgin).

1. I answered your question. Since you didn't understand what I said, try this - If they are different names then different spellings are appropriate.

2. Yes there is a segment of our society that considers Ms. to be "a fiercely independent woman who doesn't want to be treated as a naive 'unmarried' virgin". However , in our society the abbreviation Ms. is often used to refer to all married and unmarried women regardless of the individual's personality.

So Ms. is also used to refer to women who do not consider themselves to be fiercely independent, naive 'unmarried' virgins who are out to make a political statement about their social status.

"Sue is now going by Su, spelled without the 'e'."

But what I copied in this reply works too. Dashes are used to separate the letters someone is speaking. I don't remember if they are hyphens or en-dashes, though. I think hyphens.

I figured you'd have the straight dope on this, and that's (both counts) what I assumed. The "without the 'e'/'ie' is the simplest solution, but it's not as elegant if someone is trying to convey something specific (i.e. it's not just dropping a letter or two, but a different way of interpreting and responding to people based on a subtle difference in their personalities.

Thus the stubborn and argumentative "Susan" transitions—over time—to the wisdom of a wise Chinese elder who listens and considers someone's stance—before pulling their ears and ripping them a new one for being an imbecile!

Likewise, the problem with the dashes is that it seemingly runs counter to the underlying argument, and doesn't fit into the natural abbreviation or title exclusion. Here, you're not writing what someone says, as no one spelling something by saying "V dash i dash n dash ….

I guess I was kinda hoping for a more elligant solution, rather than simply the one used most often. :(

Dashes are used to separate the letters someone is speaking. But they are not in single quotes. I don't remember if they are hyphens or en-dashes, though. I think hyphens.

Just to clarify, you're suggesting:

"My name is Sue, S-U, or a simple F-U for you!"

:)

If so, that actually works quite well, as they're not putting anything in 'air quotes', but are simply spelling as a normal element of dialogue.

"Sue is no longer Sue, the mouthy brat. She now is Su,

If you were the character being spoken to, how would you hear "Su" and not "Sue"?

"Sue is no longer Sue, the mouthy brat. She now is Su,

If you were the character being spoken to, how would you hear "Su" and not "Sue"?

In the end, it's a question of 'reasonable suspension of disbelief'. Since the two terms are homophones, there would be no way to differentiate them based on verbal cues—making it impossible to believe, even in a fantasy context. Spelling it out acknowledges the dilemma, allowing the reader to act on what they've already noticed about the spelling.

Following that logic, saying "without the E" is overkill, while the simpler "spelled S-U" works without belaboring the point.

Assuming that Sue is English and the abbreviation of Susan

Sue is often used as a nickname for someone named Susan. Sue is also used as a name with no relationship to Susan.

Here in the US, I've heard Su pronounced the same as Sue. Perhaps they are butchering the Chinese pronunciation.

Assuming that Sue is English and the abbreviation of Susan, it would sound like 'Soo'. If Su is Chinese, then the name would sound more like 'Sah'.

Thanks. That helps, sorta, as I'm unsure how to convey that in standard dialogue without using special punctuation marks. Writing "that's pronounced 'Soo'" isn't any better than saying "that's spelled S-U", though it is slightly more informative.

I assumed the name change from Sue to Su is a joke. What else could it be? So I'd handle it as a joke and cede all spelling and pronunciation remarks.

You're right, in that it's not a legal name change, but it's requesting a new personal name. As I stated, it's because the characters are attempting to change their personas (i.e. how they're perceived by others). But in this case, they're trying to change the image they project, so they can change their reputations. As such, they're requesting their family's support in reminding them to act in accordance with the new role they're seeking. They won't insist on the name change with casual acquantances, or even most friends, as it's their image in the world they're changing by how they act rather than forcing people to approve of an odd-name choice.

It's a minor sub-plot about personal redemption in a story about one character helping others turn their lives around, so the story context (hopefully) makes all the difference, as readers see the progression that led to this change, underscoring why it works.

Given enough time (a couple weeks/months), they can safely drop the 'cutesy' names as they've had adopted the personas and those around them will recognize their personal change (i.e. more dependable, less flighty and irresponsible).

P.S. More to the point of your suggestion, they're not asking everyone to call them by that name, just certain key individuals as a 'reminder' to act consistently as their personal behavior changes are fully accepted (by them). Thus they won't repeat this mantra often, while at the same time, it's a personal favor, so they also won't belabor the point go rambling on about where the 'name' originates, how the pronunciation differs, and where it derives from culturally.

'Nuff said about a minor technical point. It's officially been beaten to death. ;-)

As the guys got to later in this thread, I would start with pronouncing her name change, and actually spelling it out.

"She's changed her name. She's going from Sue - said like the Soo locks, and now dropping the 'e' at the end, and pronounced like a southern aristorcat, Suh, so it's just Ess You."

That's kinda overkill for casual conversation between close friends or siblings, and repeating it several times over the course of a story it quickly becomes tedious. The key, for this sort of thing, is to make is as brief as possible. As I noted earlier, the readers already know how it's spelled, so the "S-U" spelling is just so it dialogue's text sounds natural. Rather than repeating both the spelling and the punctuation, I'll probably introduce the first initially, and then later I'll switch to the other, just to mix it up a bit.

Extra information doesn't hurt, as long as you don't do info. dumps, but dialogue is tricky to make it sound legit and keeping with the various standardized guidelines (keeping it reasonable).