comma

[Barb_D]

Okay, whatever. In my reading of it, the very fact that Parliament adopted this report is a step forward what "they" were trying to achieve. It shows an example of this "fruit-bearing."

I think we can all agree that the original can be improved on, and that there are many ways to do so.

The original question about the comma has become pretty moot by now.

[Soup]

Originally Posted by Barb_D

Okay, whatever. In my reading of it, the very fact that Parliament adopted this report is a step forward what "they" were trying to achieve. It shows an example of this "fruit-bearing."

I think we can all agree that the original can be improved on, and that there are many ways to do so.

The original question about the comma has become pretty moot by now.

Not at all. It's pivotal.

________________
'Okay, whatever.' You give in so readily. Why?

[Allen165]

I still like my original sentence the most, and I think there should be no comma after "1977."

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.

[konungursvia]

Did you write it, or just find it? I forget.

On further reflection, I think the phrase "(among other things)" would be better placed after the verb of that clause: "which emphasized (among other things)..."

[Allen165]

Originally Posted by konungursvia

Did you write it, or just find it? I forget.

On further reflection, I think the phrase "(among other things)" would be better placed after the verb of that clause: "which emphasized (among other things)..."

I wrote the sentence. Putting "among other things" after "emphasized" would change the meaning of the sentence. It would mean that the Parliament emphasized other things as well, which it did not do.

[konungursvia]

Okay, in that case, I'd prefer to write: "... in which (among other things) it emphasized..." as readers are more likely to be tripped up with such a separation between subject and verb.

[Barb_D]

Originally Posted by Soup

Not at all. It's pivotal.

I was assuming the original poster had fled in terror but was proven wrong below.

(Oh, and in answer to the other question: Because punctuation ranks high among the matters the come down to a choice in writing style. Remember I said I had considered the colon. If thought your rewrite superior, but will defend the colon as a being correct option, not the correct option. I would give different suggestions to someone learning English and writing a simple paragraph than I would to someone with a sophisticated passage at an advanced level of English -- but I bet you would too!)

[Barb_D]

Jasmin, who did the "other things" if not Parliament? Did the report call for "inclusion of a reference to sport in the EC Treaty" or did Parliament do that along with adopting the report, or am I misunderstanding that part completely?


If you broke the original down into a series of very simple sentences, what would they be?

Their efforts bore fruit.
Parliament adopted a report in May 1997.
The report... ?
In addition, Parliament ... ?


Then we can help you stitch it back together.

[Allen165]

Originally Posted by Barb_D

Jasmin, who did the "other things" if not Parliament? Did the report call for "inclusion of a reference to sport in the EC Treaty" or did Parliament do that along with adopting the report, or am I misunderstanding that part completely?


If you broke the original down into a series of very simple sentences, what would they be?

Their efforts bore fruit.
Parliament adopted a report in May 1997.
The report... ?
In addition, Parliament ... ?



Then we can help you stitch it back together.

The Parliament (I'm using "the" because I'm referring to a specific parliament, the European Parliament) did the other things. It adopted a report in which it called for the inclusion of a reference to sport in the EC Treaty.