Answer: Adding "Out" After a Vocalization

[traycer_]

starwatcher307 asked: Is it correct to add "out" after a vocalization? (i.e. "he hissed out", "he gasped out", etc.)

With examples from Harry Potter.

Comments

[pathology_doc]

The converse of this would seem to be: "If you need the word to preserve rhyme and meter in a song, poem or ballad, go for it."

Alternatively, it seems to me that having a character say it would at least lay the blame for the extra word at the character's door. After all, we know that how we speak is (generally) not how we write. e.g.:

"I shall pursue you to the ends of the earth!" Draco said to Harry as wizards in white coats dragged him through the Great Hall and away to St Mungo's. "I shall scream out your name and my lusts for you on every street corner from here to Durmstrang!"

[starwatcher307]

.
That's how I do it. I try to use 'correct' grammar in narration, but use 'colloquial' grammar in dialog. And that changes, depending which character is speaking.
.

[traycer_]

Hee!! I loved the vision of Draco being dragged off by men in white coats! :)

I confess that I have very little knowledge of constructing poetry, so you may be right in that respect. I don't know…

As for how a character speaks, it's very true that they may say it wrong based on their upbringing and circumstances. And it's so easy to insert the extra words into the character's dialogue because of our own use of language. In fact, I have to be very careful when editing my own work to make sure I find all the references to "just", and delete more than half of them while I'm at it. I just have this habit of using that word all the time. :)

No matter if the character says it or not within the dialogue, redundancy should not be used after a vocalization, or in a dialogue tag, as the question was posed (at least how I interpreted it).

[sidlj]

Would 'cried out' be an exception? Since 'cried' on its own could be taken to mean 'sobbed', which would be the wrong interpretation.

[starwatcher307]

.
There are a few exceptions, which I don't recall unless I'm using them; 'cried out' is one of them. Sometimes adding the 'out' makes the meaning clearer, although even 'cried' may be sufficient, depending on the context and structure of the sentence.

I check my internal grammar monitor whenever I use 'out' with a manner of speaking. In - moaned out, groaned out, shouted out, snapped out, snarled out, roared out - the 'out' adds nothing. But 'forced out', 'ground out' and 'pointed out' need to go together. (IMO, YMMV.)
.

[traycer_]

As I mentioned to sidlj, 'cried out' really isn't an exception, because you could use the word 'yelled' and get the same result.

But 'forced out', 'ground out' and 'pointed out' need to go together

Again, there are alternate words that could be used in these examples, but just as important, these words should not be used as vocalization. 'Ground out', for example, is a baseball term, but even if used (liberally) as a vocalization, you could still replace it with 'growled'. And 'forced out' is another example of having absolutely nothing to do with vocalization and should not be used in that context.

Basically, there are no exceptions to the rule when it comes to redundancies. We just need to find an alternate way of saying something to get our meaning across.

[starwatcher307]

.
because you could use the word 'yelled' and get the same result.

True. But for me, there's also a rhythm and 'flavor' of chosen words -- sometimes one fits where the thesaurus-equivalent doesn't. Totally subjective, but it works for me.

Hee! I don't follow baseball, so didn't know about 'ground out'. But as for 'forced out' -- if we're trying to convey a manner of speaking, I don't see why it couldn't be valid in certain limited circumstances.
.

[lady_lirenel]

I'm thinking the added 'out' is a remnant from the Anglo-Saxon where there was a slight difference between 'sendan' and 'onsenden'. They added the prefix in order to make a slight change in meaning. I think we tend to add words to give a slight difference in meaning as well, we just don't add them as prefices.

Or I could be completely wrong. Not quite awake yet.

[starwatcher307]

.
a remnant from the Anglo-Saxon where there was a slight difference between 'sendan' and 'onsenden'.

Cool! I wasn't aware of that structure.

I think we tend to add words to give a slight difference in meaning as well,

I can see it in some instances -- the difference between 'cried' and 'cried out' that sidlj mentioned. But if there's a difference between 'shouted' and 'shouted out', it's too slight for me to notice. Perhaps there's a regional variation and/or meaning that others might not recognize.
.

[lady_lirenel]

Yah, it works for some words more than others. It could be that there used to be a bigger difference and it's just faded over time. Of course, depending on the sentence "shouted out" could work: like if they're talking about a "shout out" to someone over the radio or something.

And sometimes "out" makes the sentence a little more poetical:

Harry looked over the lake.
Harry looked out over the lake.

I think it just depends on the word and the sentence structure.

[traycer_]

We don't want to take the word 'out' totally out of the English language! We need it when taking out the trash and holding out for a bigger raise, and yeah, even when Harry is looking out over the lake. :) We just don't need it in terms of describing how something was said.

Also, 'shouted out' is not the same as the term 'shout out', at least not in my mind. 'Shout out' is a greeting, whereas 'shouted out' is an action, which again, should not be used as a way to describe vocalization. That'd be like saying 'hello' is the same as 'helloed' (is that even a word?). *g*

So yeah, I'm thinking that 'shouted out' would not work no matter how it's used as a dialogue tool.

[lmichelle599]

Love your icon. So fuckin' cool.

[traycer_]

Hee! I know! I saw it and immediately had to have it. :)