[Grammar] Is this comma used wrong for clarification?

[MathiasPedersen]

Hello. I wrote an English paper some weeks ago and when I got my paper back I had a comma error that I could not quite understand.
I want to check if I have made an error and understand what the error is.

"Professor Popenoe and Dr. Scott Haltzman are both of the opinion that for some, L.A.T. relationships might hinder the social ability to form long-term relationships".

Note: L.A.T is a term for Living Apart Together, which means couples who are together but live apart.So the reason why I used the comma there was to clarify that it is: for some that L.A.T relationships might hinder...
And if I did not have the comma there I was afraid it might be read as: some L.A.T relationships might hinder...

I would like to know if it really is an error and why it is and error or why it is not an error.

I really appreciate the help and thank you in advance!

Kind regards Mathias.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would have used a comma there too.

Please also see my post #5 - I hadn't noticed that there was no comma before "for". I would enclose "for some" between two commas.

 

[SoothingDave]

Me, too.

 

[MathiasPedersen]

Are you English teachers? Could you provide some grammar argument why it would be okay?

Because I cannot convince my teacher with my own words that I can use a comma there. I tried to say that comma can be used for clarification in a sentence, but he says that there is no need for this comma and it is actually dividing the sentence up in way that is gramatically wrong.

 

[emsr2d2]

I should have pointed out that I would also have added a comma before "for some".

They are of the opinion that, for some, LAT relationships ...

Without any commas, it reads as "some LAT relationships" which makes no sense.

 

[SoothingDave]

Your teacher is wrong. Whether this is worth getting into an argument with him is a different question.

The argument you already made is the correct one: without the comma it reads as "some LAT relationships." The comma adds clarity, it signals that "for some" is one thought and "LAT relationships" begins another thought.

 

[5jj]

I wouldn't. It is clearly wrong in "Professor Popenoe and Dr. Scott Haltzman are both of the opinion that, L.A.T. relationships might hinder the social ability to form long-term relationships". The insertion of 'for some' requires two commas or none. in my opinion.

 

[MathiasPedersen]

I wouldn't. It is clearly wrong in "Professor Popenoe and Dr. Scott Haltzman are both of the opinion that, L.A.T. relationships might hinder the social ability to form long-term relationships". The insertion of 'for some' requires two commas or none. in my opinion.

This makes sense and I see what you mean. Can you, however, explain it with grammar? so I can justify it to my teacher.

 

[5jj]

This makes sense and I see what you mean. Can you, however, explain it with grammar? so I can justify it to my teacher.

It's not so much grammar as the conventions of punctuation. let's simplify the sentence:

1. A and B are both of the opinion that, C might hinder something.

A comma either before or after 'that' is wrong in English, though in some other languages it is acceptable before.

2. For some (people), C might hinder something.

That's fine.

3. A and B are both of the opinion that for some, C might hinder something.

That is not acceptable. The comma appears to make an inappropriate break between 'that' and 'C might hinder something'.

4. A and B are both of the opinion that, for some (people), C might hinder something.


That's fine. The pair of commas acts in a similar way to brackets.

 

[MathiasPedersen]

Thank you for taking to explain this - that was very helpful!