Comma with Dependent Clauses

Status
Not open for further replies.

QTip

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Sometimes I have an independent clause with a dependent clause inside of it. I'm wondering if I need a comma in between them.

Two examples:


1.

a) Because I won first and my wife won second, the crowd thought we cheated.

or

b) Because I won first, and my wife won second, the crowd thought we cheated.


2.

a) The box is black because I had this paint and Bobby liked it.

or

b) The box is black because I had this point, and Bobby like it.


Putting the comma seems to break up the single thoughts, but I thought perhaps I need it because it is a dependent clause.

Thanks for any help.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Sometimes I have an independent clause with a dependent clause inside of it. I'm wondering if I need a comma in between them.

Two examples:


1.

a) Because I won first and my wife won second, the crowd thought we cheated.

or

b) Because I won first, and my wife won second, the crowd thought we cheated.


2.

a) The box is black because I had this paint and Bobby liked it.

or

b) The box is black because I had this point, and Bobby like it.


Putting the comma seems to break up the single thoughts, but I thought perhaps I need it because it is a dependent clause.

Thanks for any help.

As a rule, we insert a comma after a clause beginning with "because" when it begins a sentence. We mostly don't use a comma before "because" if the clause ends a sentence. The exception is when the opening clause is a negative.

See more here: 5 Calls for a Comma Before ?Because?
 

driftwood

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Because I won first and my wife won second, the crowd thought we cheated.

The box is black because I had this painted and Bobby liked it.

When two clauses are joined by the coordinating conjunction, and, you don't use a comma between them.
 

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
When two clauses are joined by the coordinating conjunction, and, you don't use a comma between them.

That's simply not true.
A great many traditional grammar books and many style guides say that two independent clauses linked with an "and" require a comma. This is ignored by many when the clauses are short.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
When two clauses are joined by the coordinating conjunction, and, you don't use a comma between them.

I agree with Barb. That is not true at all.
 

QTip

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Thanks for the discussion so far, but I'm still unsure what is correct. I wish I didn't use "because" in both my examples since I know that's a tricky one. The sentence I'm working on right now is the following:

If no one has bet and the action is on you, the dealer will often encourage you to act by asking the question, "Check or bet?"

My dependent clause actually contains an independent clause. So, I'm wondering if a comma should be inserted. "If no one has bet, and the action is on you, the dealer..."

I have other sentences where the dependent clause contains an independent clause and it's at the end of the sentence.

"The decisions are less complicated as semi-bluffing is not a factor and we can't give away equity to worse hands."

I'm wondering if a comma should be placed here "...not a fact, and we..."
 
Last edited:

QTip

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Thanks for the discussion so far, but I'm still unsure what is correct. I wish I didn't use "because" in both my examples since I know that's a tricky one. The sentence I'm working on right now is the following:

If no one has bet and the action is on you, the dealer will often encourage you to act by asking the question, "Check or bet?"

My dependent clause actually contains an independent clause. So, I'm wondering if a comma should be inserted. "If no one has bet, and the action is on you, the dealer..."

I have other sentences where the dependent clause contains an independent clause and it's at the end of the sentence.

"The decisions are less complicated as semi-bluffing is not a factor and we can't give away equity to worse hands."

I'm wondering if a comma should be placed here "...not a fact, and we..."

I could use something simpler like:

If Bob is in the red car and Mary is in the green car, send Steve home.

or

If Bob is in the red car, and Mary is in the green car, send Steve home.

Seems I have a compound-complex sentence, but my hangup is the two dependent clauses are not joined by a conjunction.
 

QTip

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Found a similar example on a couple sites.

"Be who you are and say who you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

Noticed there's not a comma before "...and those who matter don't mind" even though that's a dependent clause.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
You don't need a comma in any of those recent examples you given.
You could choose to use one with: "The decisions are less complicated as semi-bluffing is not a factor, and we can't give away equity to worse hands." This is a longer sentence and the comma makes it easier for some to read the sentence.
"Mary went south and I went north" doesn't need a comma. You can use one if you like.
If you had "Mary went with Peter and John and I went alone", you'd need a comma before either the first or second 'and' to disambiguate it.
 
Last edited:

Rover_KE

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
When two clauses are joined by the coordinating conjunction "and", you don't use a comma between them.

driftwood, please read this extract from the forum's Posting Guidelines:

You are welcome to answer questions posted in the Ask a Teacher forum as long as your suggestions, help, and advice reflect a good understanding of the English language. If you are not a teacher, you will need to state that clearly at the top of your post.

Thank you,

Rover​



 

QTip

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
You don't need a comma in any of those recent examples you given.
You could choose to use one with: "The decisions are less complicated as semi-bluffing is not a factor, and we can't give away equity to worse hands." This is a longer sentence and the comma makes it easier for some to read the sentence.
"Mary went south and I went north" doesn't need a comma. You can use one if you like.
If you had "Mary went with Peter and John and I went alone", you'd need a comma before either the first or second 'and' to disambiguate it.

Thanks for helping me get closer to understanding this.

The way you rewrote that sentence, I fear confusion.

What I'm normally after with this sentence structure is this: There is an independent clause that depends on two conditions.

If you go to the store this afternoon and Bob want to go to the dairy section, do not buy cracked eggs.

You rewrote this structure as:

Do not buy cracked eggs if you want to go the store today, and Bob wants to go to the dairy section.

For some reason, this reconstruction seems odds to me, and I'm concerned the final independent clause may be confused as standing alone instead of being a condition.

I'm after a few setups:

If condition 1 and condition 2, then conclusion.

Because condition 1 and condition 2, then conclusion.

If conclusion, then condition 1 and condition 2.

My condition 2s are dependent clauses. But, separating them seems like it may confuse the accurate meaning. However, two two conditions clearly are a complex sentence, and I'm told I'm to have a comma between the dependent and independent clauses when the independent clause comes first.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Thanks for helping me get closer to understanding this.

The way you rewrote that sentence, I fear confusion.

What I'm normally after with this sentence structure is this: There is an independent clause that depends on two conditions.

If you go to the store this afternoon and Bob want to go to the dairy section, do not buy cracked eggs.

You rewrote this structure as:

Do not buy cracked eggs if you want to go the store today, and Bob wants to go to the dairy section.

No, I changed your "The decisions are less complicated as semi-bluffing is not a factor and we can't give away equity to worse hands" by adding a comma in the spirit of the discussion about commas.

For some reason, this reconstruction seems odds to me, and I'm concerned the final independent clause may be confused as standing alone instead of being a condition.
The decisions are less complicated for two reasons: the semi-bluffing is not a factor[,] and we can't give away equity to worse hands
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top