comma

[Soup]

Originally Posted by Jasmin165

Should there be a comma after "1997"?

Their efforts seemed to bear fruit, as the Parliament adopted a report on sport in May 1997, in which it (among other things) emphasized that the EU had to recognize the specific nature of sport and the autonomy of the sports movement, and called for the inclusion of a reference to sport in the EC Treaty.

The comma admits ambiguity.

Try,

Their efforts seemed to bear fruit. In May 1997, the Parliament adopted a report on sport in which it emphasized, among other things, that the EU had to recognize the specific nature of sport and the autonomy of the sports movement, and called for the inclusion of a reference to sport in the EC Treaty

[Barb_D]

I like the parentheses, but I still don't agree with that comma after the year. It implies you can lift that entire section out and still be left with a logical sentence, but that's not so: It seemed to bear fruit... in which it (among other things)

[konungursvia]

I agree with Jasmine. It could have read: a report on sport in May 1997, which emphasized.... but it didn't, it reads "in which it emphasized...." so the "it" there must refer to the parliament. Unless it makes sense to say "a report, in which the report emphasized...." But I don't think that would be sensible.

Also, now reading soup's sentence, I find her version the best.

[Soup]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

I agree with Jasmine. It could have read: a report on sport in May 1997, which emphasized.... but it didn't, it reads "in which it emphasized...." so the "it" there must refer to the parliament. Unless it makes sense to say "a report, in which the report emphasized...." But I don't think that would be sensible.

Also, now reading soup's sentence, I find her version the best.

Oh, thank you, but I was just trying to make a quick point. There is a better way to say it:

Their efforts seemed to bear fruit. In May 1997, the Parliament, in its/their report on sport, emphasized that the UE ... .

[Allen165]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

I agree with Jasmine. It could have read: a report on sport in May 1997, which emphasized.... but it didn't, it reads "in which it emphasized...." so the "it" there must refer to the parliament. Unless it makes sense to say "a report, in which the report emphasized...." But I don't think that would be sensible.

Also, now reading soup's sentence, I find her version the best.

So do you think there should be a comma after "1997"? I agree with Barb that there shouldn't because I think what follows "1997" is a restrictive clause. If one takes out "in May 1997" it becomes obvious that there should be no comma:

Their efforts seemed to bear fruit, as the Parliament adopted a report on sport in which it (among other things) emphasized that...

I always have problems with restrictive and non-restrictive clauses; I think the difference between what is essential to the meaning of a sentence and what isn't is often open to interpretation.

[bhaisahab]

It needs the comma as a natural pause.

[Barb_D]

Originally Posted by Soup

Oh, thank you, but I was just trying to make a quick point. There is a better way to say it:

Their efforts seemed to bear fruit. In May 1997, the Parliament, in its/their report on sport, emphasized that the UE ... .

Yes, absolutely! (I had been thinking about a colon after "fruit" as well.)

[bhaisahab]

Originally Posted by Barb_D

Yes, absolutely! (I had been thinking about a colon after "fruit" as well.)

It's not a colon, it's a full stop. I agree that Soup's sentence is an improvement on the original.

[Barb_D]

A colon is absolutely an option. What follows explains the truth of what came before it. "It introduces the logical consequence, or effect, of a fact stated before."

There are many ways this passage could be re-written.

[Soup]

Originally Posted by Barb_D

A colon is absolutely an option. What follows explains the truth of what came before it. "It introduces the logical consequence, or effect, of a fact stated before."

The function you're referring to is called syntactical-deductive. For example,

• There was only one possible explanation: the train had never arrived.

Notice that the purpose of the second clause (the train had never arrived) is to narrow the semantic scope of the of the phrase only one possible explanation by providing a precise definition.

In our example,

• Their efforts seemed to bear fruit. In May 1997, the Parliament, in its report on sport, emphasized that the UE ... .

the second clause, while it explains 'bear fruit', does not, however, tell us why 'Their efforts seemed to' do so. It is for that reason that I would suggest not using a colon in that particular recasting of the sentence.