Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    bertietheblue is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    577

    The redundant comma?

    Why use a comma if the sense is clear without[,] and the comma doesn't in any affect how you read a piece of text (intonation, pauses[,] etc)? I'm asking this because in another thread I've been discussing ', which' non-restrictive relative clauses. If these are unambiguous[,] why do we need a comma? Look at the preceding 'If ...' sentence[,] for example - there's no comma after 'unambiguous'. It mattered before[,] but does it matter now?

  2. #2
    BobK's Avatar
    BobK is offline Harmless drudge
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,916

    Re: The redundant comma?

    Some people and institutions wrongly insist on a comma before 'which', simply because they hold that 'which' should only be used non-restrictively. It's nothing to get upset about, but it explains the angry red line that keeps appearing in WinWord.

    b

  3. #3
    bertietheblue is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    577

    Re: The redundant comma?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobK View Post
    Some people and institutions wrongly insist on a comma before 'which', simply because they hold that 'which' should only be used non-restrictively. It's nothing to get upset about, but it explains the angry red line that keeps appearing in WinWord.

    b
    Yeah, I'm aware of that but what I was asking was: why use a comma if the sense is clear without and the comma does not serve any other purpose (eg to modulate speech)? As an example, we learn that non-restrictive relative clauses are always preceded by a comma because otherwise they might be confused for restrictive relative clauses - since both can begin with the 'which' pronoun - and change the sense of a sentence from that intended. However, often with or without a comma there is only one possible sense so why bother? In other words, how far should grammatical prescription guide us in our punctuation?

Posting Permissions

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