Why you ask?

[Flask]

Recently, I was amused by a mispunctuated sentence (or what I take to be a mispunctuated sentence) on an otherwise well-written sign at a gelato place where my wife and I had gone for dessert. A picture of the sign appears at the bottom of this post. The sentence in question is the middle one of the following three:

We use traditional Pozetti cabinets for storage and service, unlike the glass displays that you might be used to. Why you ask? Although you can't see our delicious flavors or beautiful colors, the Pozetti is undeniably the best way to serve our gelato.

The sentence Why you ask? makes sense there, but not as it is punctuated, in my opinion. As punctuated, Why you ask? seems to be an ESL way of saying Why do you ask? That is, it looks as if the writer didn't realize that an auxiliary verb was needed to form the question! But how should the sentence be punctuated? I've come up with a few possibilities:

1) "Why?" you ask.
2) Why, you ask?
3) "Why?" you ask?

Currently, I'm inclining toward (3), but dislike how heavy the punctuation is in it. As I see things, the problem with (1) is that it means the assertion You ask, "Why?"; the problem with (2) is that it means the elliptical Do you ask why? It's the meaning of (3) that I think is called for: Do you ask, "Why?" Of course, the auxiliary verb still isn't used, but its omission seems somehow more defensible.

What do you think?

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm inclined towards "Why?", you ask. I know that's none of your suggestions! I'd assume the writer was suggesting that the reader will definitely be asking "Why?" at this point so I wouldn't frame the whole thing as a question.

 

[PeterCW]

If I encountered that in a submission to the magazine I would have used the first option.

 

[jutfrank]

Definitely #1. It's not a question, it's an assertion—to show the reader that the writer understands that the reader is now asking a question. Like emsr2d2, I think it's better with the comma to show the natural pause.

It does not mean 'Why do you ask?', it means 'You're asking why'. These have very different senses. It's not an enquiry into the reason for questioning, but rather an understanding that there is a questioning.

 

[Flask]

Definitely #1. It's not a question, it's an assertion—to show the reader that the writer understands that the reader is now asking a question. Like emsr2d2, I think it's better with the comma to show the natural pause.

It does not mean 'Why do you ask?', it means 'You're asking why'. These have very different senses. It's not an enquiry into the reason for questioning, but rather an understanding that there is a questioning.

My thanks to all of you. I agree with you that #1, or the variation of it with the comma after the quoted question, is the right approach. At first, I too thought the sentence was an assertion, but managed to talk myself into thinking it was a question after I noticed a rising intonation in how I uttered it. But I now think that the rising intonation is not essential.

This is not a rhetorical flourish that I am accustomed to using in speech, let alone in writing. It suppose a similar one is found in this: "Too good to be true," you say. I could hear that being used as part of a sales pitch and followed by an explanation of why "it" is not too good to be true. Would you say that it, too, is a statement rather than a question?

 

[jutfrank]

a) "Too good to be true", you say.

This is not a question. It's equivalent to "I hear you say "Too good to be true"'.

b) "Too good to be true?", you say.

This is not a question. It's equivalent to "I hear you ask "Too good to be true?".


c) "Too good to be true", you say?

This is a question, equivalent to 'Do I hear you say '"Too good to be true"?'

d) "Too good to be true?," you say?

This is a question, equivalent to 'Do I hear you ask "Too good to be true?"'

 

[Flask]

Thanks, Jutfrank. I realize that I punctuated "Too good to be true", you say. as a statement about what the interlocutor said. In wondering whether it might be a question rather than a statement, I had in mind the sentence as you'd naturally imagine it being used in a sales pitch, independently of how I punctuated it.

I think the sentence would sound like (c) ("Too good to be true," you say?), which, as you indicate, is equivalent in force to Do I hear you say, "Too good to be true"? Similarly, I'm inclined to hear the mispunctuated original sentence, Why you ask?, as equivalent in intonation and semantic force to "Why?" you ask? (= Do you ask, "Why?").

This isn't intended as an objection to what you originally said. I just wanted to see if you would say something similar about a sentence with a similar function. Perhaps the rhetorical function of these sentences can be achieved regardless of whether they are interpreted as questions or as statements. If so, the (a) and (c) methods would seem interchangeable.

"Why?" you ask. / "Too good to be true," you say.
= You ask, "Why?" Well, let me tell you why. / You say, "Too good to be true." Well, let me tell you why it isn't.

"Why?" you ask? / "Too good to be true," you say?
= Do you ask, "Why?" Well, let me tell you why. / Do you say, "Too good to be true"? Well, let me tell you why it isn't.

 

[jutfrank]

I had in mind the sentence as you'd naturally imagine it being used in a sales pitch, independently of how I punctuated it.

The first way that came to my imagination was as a question along the lines of my sentence d) in post #6, where the salesperson preempts the customer's question ('Is this amazing product for real?') by echoing it himself, and then by rhetorically checking that with the customer by posing his own utterance as a clarification question.

I think the sentence would sound like (c) ("Too good to be true," you say?), which, as you indicate, is equivalent in force to Do I hear you say, "Too good to be true"?

Yes, that's also very easy to imagine. Perhaps a bit more than sentence d).

I wonder how you would intonate the 'Too good to be true' part in sentence c) given that it's not a question. I don't think there would be a rising intonation on 'true', only at the end of the utterance, on 'say'. Do you agree?

Similarly, I'm inclined to hear the mispunctuated original sentence, Why you ask?, as equivalent in intonation and semantic force to "Why?" you ask? (= Do you ask, "Why?").

I'm a little surprised that you hear it like that. Perhaps it's because you're unfamiliar with the phrase. I hear it quite clearly, with a rising intonation on Why? and a fall on ask.

This isn't intended as an objection to what you originally said. I just wanted to see if you would say something similar about a sentence with a similar function. Perhaps the rhetorical function of these sentences can be achieved regardless of whether they are interpreted as questions or as statements. If so, the (a) and (c) methods would seem interchangeable.

"Why?" you ask. / "Too good to be true," you say.
= You ask, "Why?" Well, let me tell you why. / You say, "Too good to be true." Well, let me tell you why it isn't.

"Why?" you ask? / "Too good to be true," you say?
= Do you ask, "Why?" Well, let me tell you why. / Do you say, "Too good to be true"? Well, let me tell you why it isn't.

Yes, I agree with all of that. Either way, the salesman sets himself up to continue. In that respect, they're equivalent.

If there is a trivial rhetorical difference between a) and c), which would be expressed through minor differences in prosody, it's that sentence c) acts as a clarification question. It's like saying "What's that? You think it's too good to be true? Really?"

Rhetorically, the vendor pretends to be able to hear the customer's thoughts, as if he can read minds and is sufficiently sensitive, responsive, and confident to allay any skepticism the customer might have through sheer conviction of the quality of the product.