I was just throwing out my thoughts on style, not on what is correct. My tastes are sometimes old-fashioned, sometimes new-fangled, sometimes modern, and sometimes eccentric. So I don't expect that authors adhere to my preference for using italics. Sorry if I seemed like I was saying things had to be my way there.

Also, I wasn't saying that thoughts should be placed in quotations. I was saying that I usually express them as impressions of thoughts in my narrative. A similar way of doing things might be found in Michael Shaara's works, or Paul McCusker's Catacombs.



Since it is correct to use either italics or quotation marks, it's not an issue of what is syntactically correct, but rather what you choose and why, and therefore a pragmatic issue.

As far as the other issue, I hadn't noticed that in this thread (there is a lot of minutia in this thread). I don't know which is technically correct (I imagine that the grammar books could go either way on that one). And yes, that would be a syntactic issue.



SEMANTICS:
1.
Linguistics .
a.
the study of meaning.
b.
the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. (Dictionary.com, not the most accurate source, but reliable.)

PRAGMATICS
Linguistics . the analysis of language in terms of the situational context within which utterances are made, including the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the relation between speaker and listener.

That definition is a bit lacking, as I have read several linguists to describe pragmatics as also including style, intonation, the intentional violation of general rules (like being clear, not beating around the bush, etc.) in order to make a point, etc. But you get the idea, I hope.



I don't see how these two statements contradict each other. Choosing between different conventions of syntax, or of style, creates linguistic context and is therefore pragmatic. It's not a syntactical issue because you are not breaking syntactical rules, you are choosing between acceptable conventions.



By that logic, there is not such thing a syntactical rule, and therefore I could put this sentence in a random order, and it would still technically be correct English.

You can see how the distinction is useful, whether it is accurate or not. Euclidean geometry is technically not accurate to how the world actually works, but it's useful. That's why we still use Euclidean geometry, and why we teach syntactical rules.

Unless, of course, you want everyone to be an e. e. cummings.



So you agree that there is a such thing as "proper" (or correct) English? A convention that we all perceive as fundamental and which is therefore distinct from other conventions?



That is all true, and that is why most of us are willing to accept people e.e. cummings as a rare, tolerable type, but not someone we would want everyone to imitate.

I tend to agree with Frost, though, that breaking rules or conventions in the pursuit of "art" is really a fundamental misunderstanding of what "art" is about. Not that Frost was (or I am) opposed to breaking the rules, but he didn't do it for its own sake.

And that's something only someone skilled, like Frost, can get away with. So, of course, the point about trust is valid. We trust Frost. However, we are generally skeptical of fan fiction...especially when the author cannot spell (or begins his declarative sentences with prepositions).

I've always, felt, however, that if one is going to break the rules for some reason, it is better done in poetry than in prose. I'm not sure why I feel that way, I just don't care for prose done in that way.

*EDIT*

By the way, I want you to know that I've appreciated all of our discussions. I find that my mental blade is in need of sharpening, so I'm glad to hone it against so keen an edge as your own.

Well, technically we're discussing whether some questions about dialogue tags are syntactical or pragmatic questions. As far as I can tell the thread was open to any topic relating to dialogue tags, and the question of "said" was merely thrown out to get the topics rolling.

To say something else about dialogue tags...

I find that when I'm writing dialogue I often try to use tags (and other information, like what people are doing as they speak) to help establish rhythm in a conversation, to give a sense of when people are pausing or when they're speaking quickly, and maybe also how focused on the conversation they are. So, for instance, here's a bit of dialogue from a novel of mine:



Here's what I've been trying to do using dialogue tags and other side information in this bit of dialog:


There's a bit of a pause after "well", so I use that space for a fairly long bit of information.


My narrator said "For your own good!" pretty forcibly, and then moved on to his next thought, which is the rest of the line. So I put the dialog tag after "For your own good!" to try to show how it's a separate thought, and that he said it as if it were a separate thought.


This guy is talking quickly and intensely, so I ran everything he said together and only put the dialog tag at the end. Also, the "yes, he was smart enough" hopefully gives a sense that the narrator is stopping and thinking for a moment after listening to this.


Again, the thoughts before and after the tag are kind of separate.


I put a fairly long description of what the other speaker looks like there partly because I just want to tell you what he looks like...but I'm also attempting to give a sense that the narrator is taking a moment to think and looking at his interlocutor as he does so. And then in the next line, I put the dialog tag after the narrator swears in annoyance to try to show how he's emphasizing the word, and then moving on; he's not just saying "Well gosh, I still think...", he's saying, "Well, GOSH! [pause] I still think..."

Of course, I'm not a master and I didn't do this perfectly, but it's something I try to think about when I put in dialogue tags. I would imagine that some people, though, already use dialogue tags this way subconsciously.