Comma Rule

[vcolts]

I see that the comma is omited in the following case:

We Americans/Canadians decided not to...

Instead of:

We, Americans/Canadians, decided not to...

I thought that the commas would be necessary as it is a form of using "Americans/Canadians" as an appositive.

What is the comma rule on this one?

[TheParser]

I see that the comma is omited in the following case:

We Americans/Canadians decided not to...

Instead of:

We, Americans/Canadians, decided not to...

I thought that the commas would be necessary as it is a form of using "Americans/Canadians" as an appositive.

What is the comma rule on this one?

***NOT A TEACHER***Great question. I reviewed my grammar books and found this "rule" for you: pronouns followed by noun phrases can be called "restrictive appositives." In other words, the two parts are considered so related to each other that you should not use commas: We AMERICANS love hot dogs. Did you notice that in speech you pronounce "Americans" with more stress (power)? It would sound "funny" to say: We, Americans, love hot dogs. Another example of restrictive apposition would be: Why do you AMERICANS love apple pie so much? It would sound "strange" to pause before and after the word "Americans."

[vcolts]

Thank you for finding out what the rule is. However, the explaination could be different and better.

"EX: My brother, Charles, is a neurosurgeon. (Nonrestrictive)
EX: My brother Charles is a neurosurgeon. (Restrictive)

Notice that in both cases the word Charles is the appositive. However, the fact that the sentences are punctuated differently indicates two different meanings. The first sentence signifies to the reader that Charles is simply renaming the noun brother. Therefore, the information is not essential to the meaning of the sentence, so it may be set off with commas. In other words, we can safely make the assumption that the writer has only one brother and his name is Charles. This is why the information is not essential to meaning in the sentence.

However, in the second example the word Charles, although it is acting as an appositive, is not set off with commas, which therefore indicates to the reader that Charles is not simply renaming the word brother – it is supplying additional information in the form of identifying which brother the appositive is referring to. In this case, the speaker has more than one brother, so the information is restrictive and is not set off with commas."

[Kondorosi]

I see that the comma is omited in the following case:

We Americans/Canadians decided not to...

Instead of:

We, Americans/Canadians, decided not to...

I thought that the commas would be necessary as it is a form of using "Americans/Canadians" as an appositive.

What is the comma rule on this one?

The apposition here further explains, describes 'We'. 'Americans' tells something about 'We'. Who are 'We'? Not just any 'We'. 'We Americans'. It means 'Americans' is a reduced apposition. No comma.

[vcolts]

The apposition here further explains, describes 'We'. 'Americans' tells something about 'We'. Who are 'We'? Not just any 'We'. 'We Americans'. It means 'Americans' is a reduced apposition. No comma.

A reduced apposition?
Could you get me a link on that?
I don't clearly get it.