Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Provided that

  1. #1
    nyggus is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Academic
      • Native Language:
      • Polish
      • Home Country:
      • Poland
      • Current Location:
      • Poland
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question Provided that

    "The procedure is simple to realize and provides efficient results, provided that the above-mentioned conditions are fulfilled."
    The question is whether a comma should stand before "provided that" or not.

    Thanks in advance,
    Nyggus

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Provided that

    Quote Originally Posted by nyggus
    "The procedure is simple to realize and provides efficient results, provided that the above-mentioned conditions are fulfilled."
    The question is whether a comma should stand before "provided that" or not.
    Thanks in advance,
    Nyggus
    No, it should not. "Provided that" introduces a relative clause, and you do not place a comma before a relative clause.

  3. #3
    zahari is offline Junior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • Greek
      • Home Country:
      • Greece
      • Current Location:
      • Greece
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Provided that

    Quote Originally Posted by Coffa
    No, it should not. "Provided that" introduces a relative clause, and you do not place a comma before a relative clause.
    Hi!!!

    I don't think "provided that" introduces a relative clause but rather a conditional sentence.It's a conditional alternative to if and it means on condition that, as long as, expressing strong condition : if and only if. when the if-clause precedes the main clause, we put a comma between the two clauses.when it follows there is no comma. So I wouldn't put a comma before provided, but the fact is that I've seen sentences where the conditional sentence is introduced by provided that, it follows the main clause and yet there is a comma before the conjunction (provided that).

    e.g. The government will endorse increased support for public education, provided that such funds can be received and expended.

    note: In some cases we put a comma before a relative clause, if it is non-defining. That is, if the relative clause adds extra information to the preceding noun/sentence and does not cause confusion or changes the meaning if we omitt it.
    e.g. Tony, who is very clever, got the best marks at school.

    ( "who is very clever" can be omitted without changing the meaning of the main clause).

    compare:
    People who sell drugs should be shot.( defining relative clause)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: Provided that

    Sorry - it's my fault. I was careless and misread the question as being whether a comma should be placed after 'that'. The comma before 'provided' is correct.

Similar Threads

  1. Provided (that)
    By nyggus in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29-May-2006, 20:27
  2. in case vs provided
    By zahari in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19-May-2006, 04:48
  3. slight difference in meaing?
    By peteryoung in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 19-May-2005, 09:43
  4. provided by ?
    By seagirl in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-Apr-2005, 03:21

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •