[Grammar] Comma after "but"

[jutfrank]

I think we can chalk this up to a difference in American and British punctuation neither of us was fully aware of.

No, I really don't think so. The principles are the same between all varieties. Like I said, some commas are unnecessary, some are necessary (grammatical ones) and all the rest are up to the writer. Remember that punctuation is basically just a way to mark pronunciation on written language. There's plenty of room for expression, but you can't break the rules.

Diana Hacker was clearly not a grammarian! She's very wrong about the things highlighted in red in post #18. I find it rather sad that people read her books. The Chicago Manual is quite reasonable about their advice, but you must remember who actually writes that manual, why, and who it's written for. Despite its apparent reputation in the US, it is not actually authoritative in any important way.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

No, I really don't think so. The principles are the same between all varieties. Like I said, some commas are unnecessary, some are necessary (grammatical ones) and all the rest are up to the writer. Remember that punctuation is basically just a way to mark pronunciation on written language. There's plenty of room for expression, but you can't break the rules.

Diana Hacker was clearly not a grammarian! She's very wrong about the things highlighted in red in post #18. I find it rather sad that people read her books. The Chicago Manual is quite reasonable about their advice, but you must remember who actually writes that manual, why, and who it's written for. Despite its apparent reputation in the US, it is not actually authoritative in any important way.

Unless you can point me to one, I simply don't know of a more authoritative American English reference than Chicago. And Hacker's Reference is highly regarded as a concise guide. That's why it's widely used.

But aside from our opinions about the merits of the two books, it still seems like we're agreeing. In the US, the entire approach to English is much more prescriptive than in the UK. To Americans, a grammar book is an instruction manual, a cookbook, a shop guide for repairing a 1978 VW bug. We're much more bound by our grammar rule books (I use "rule" intentionally) than the British tend to be. So British writers and editors are more likely than ours to leave out commas when - as you say - they're not really needed, rules be damned.

And I simply wasn't thinking about that difference when I recommended a comma before but. (I don't think I was the only one who recommended it.)

Re whom by, whom for, and why: As far as I know, it was written by language academics for people who what to look things up for the purpose of informing. No more conspiracy theories, please! We're drowning in them over here!

Anyhow, by now I'm sure our poster has learned enough from all of us to decide where and whether to place the commas.

Thank you for your good thoughts!

cb

PS - Typing "UK" reminds me of a TV variety show that was popular here for decades, The Tonight Show. When I was a kid, it had a host named Jack Parr. In his opening monologue one night, he said that he'd just returned from London. While he was away, someone in Hollywood phoned his studio and asked if he could speak with him.

His assistant said, "I'm afraid not. Mister Parr has gone to the United Kingdom."

The caller said, "I'm so sorry. Is it too late to send flowers?"

 

[jutfrank]

Unless you can point me to one, I simply don't know of a more authoritative American English reference than Chicago.

If you want to know about how language is used, ask a linguist, not a bunch of writers!

And Hacker's Reference is highly regarded as a concise guide. That's why it's widely used.

It's good because it's short?

But aside from our opinions about the merits of the two books, it still seems like we're agreeing. In the US, the entire approach to English is much more prescriptive than in the UK.

Well, I can't see that we're agreeing on anything. What approach do you mean? What makes you think the US approach is more prescriptive? Linguistics, of which grammar is a small part), isn't prescriptive in any way. And being prescriptivist doesn't mean that you should be able to get away with saying things that are blatantly incorrect.

Maybe I'm reading Hacker wrong. When she says a comma must precede it, maybe she means a comma should precede it, not that it is necessary to follow with comma. Do you think that's what she means? If so, that's a deeply irresponsible and misleading thing to say—perhaps even worse than being blatantly wrong.

To Americans, a grammar book is an instruction manual, a cookbook.

Whatever kind of books you're talking about are not grammar books. I suspect that you're referring to usage guides, which are very different things and have very little to do with grammar. And no, there's no difference in the UK. Usage guides are there to guide users. The people who buy them are the kind of people who wish to be guided.

We're much more bound by our grammar rule books (I use "rule" intentionally) than the British tend to be.

What are grammar rule books? Do you mean usage guides again?

So British writers and editors are more likely than ours to leave out commas when - as you say - they're not really needed.

Right, okay, this is the only sentence so far I could in theory agree with. Could I ask where you got this idea from, though? I mean, I read a lot (vast amounts) of US written English, and I've never noticed a difference.

And I simply wasn't thinking about that difference when I recommended a comma before but. (I don't think I was the only one who recommended it.)

Don't get me wrong—I'd recommend a comma there too.

Anyhow, by now I'm sure our poster has learned enough from all of us to decide where and whether to place the commas.

I hope so.

PS - Typing "UK" reminds me of a TV variety show that was popular here for decades, The Tonight Show. When I was a kid, it had a host named Jack Parr. In his opening monologue one night, he said that he'd just returned from London. While he was away, someone in Hollywood phoned his studio and asked if he could speak with him.

His assistant said, "I'm afraid not. Mister Parr has gone to the United Kingdom."

The caller said, "I'm so sorry. Is it too late to send flowers?"

:-D

 

[DANAU]

If you want to know about how language is used, ask a linguist, not a bunch of writers!



It's good because it's short?



Well, I can't see that we're agreeing on anything. What approach do you mean? What makes you think the US approach is more prescriptive? Linguistics, of which grammar is a small part), isn't prescriptive in any way. And being prescriptivist doesn't mean that you should be able to get away with saying things that are blatantly incorrect.

Maybe I'm reading Hacker wrong. When she says a comma must precede it, maybe she means a comma should precede it, not that it is necessary to follow with comma. Do you think that's what she means? If so, that's a deeply irresponsible and misleading thing to say—perhaps even worse than being blatantly wrong.



Whatever kind of books you're talking about are not grammar books. I suspect that you're referring to usage guides, which are very different things and have very little to do with grammar. And no, there's no difference in the UK. Usage guides are there to guide users. The people who buy them are the kind of people who wish to be guided.



What are grammar rule books? Do you mean usage guides again?



Right, okay, this is the only sentence so far I could in theory agree with. Could I ask where you got this idea from, though? I mean, I read a lot (vast amounts) of US written English, and I've never noticed a difference.



Don't get me wrong—I'd recommend a comma there too.



I hope so.



:-D

Thank you, jutfrank & Charlie Bernstein.

I am intrigued by your discussions; there is so much insight which a book off the shelf could not possibly provide.
Trying to read and digest what you have written, I will seek further clarification if there is any point that I am unclear about.

(please help to check if it is correct for me to start off the sentence above with the adverb "Trying".)

 

[DANAU]

No, I really don't think so. The principles are the same between all varieties. Like I said, some commas are unnecessary, some are necessary (grammatical ones) and all the rest are up to the writer. Remember that punctuation is basically just a way to mark pronunciation on written language. There's plenty of room for expression, but you can't break the rules.

Diana Hacker was clearly not a grammarian! She's very wrong about the things highlighted in red in post #18. I find it rather sad that people read her books. The Chicago Manual is quite reasonable about their advice, but you must remember who actually writes that manual, why, and who it's written for. Despite its apparent reputation in the US, it is not actually authoritative in any important way.

Hi jutfrank.

I have actually ordered the Chicago Manual too.
I would appreciate it if you could share with me some authoritative books on grammar for my reference.
Just yesterday, I also ordered the book "Teaching Tenses" which you recommended.

 

[jutfrank]

I can't see how the Chicago Manual is going to be of much help.

I don't know what you mean by 'authoritative books on grammar'.

 

[DANAU]

I can't see how the Chicago Manual is going to be of much help.

I don't know what you mean by 'authoritative books on grammar'.

Hi jutfrank.

I was taking reference to post #22 when you mentioned that Chicago Manual is "not actually authoritative in any important way".
So, I am wondering if there are other "truly" grammar - not just about usage - books that you can recommend which can help me to understand better on correct grammar and punctuation.

 

[jutfrank]

Well, it is the manual used by many publishers and universities throughout the English-speaking world.

Exactly. The manual is designed for native-speaking writers. Not very appropriate for intermediate level EFL learners.

 

[jutfrank]

So, I am wondering if there are other "truly" grammar - not just about usage - books that you can recommend which can help me to understand better on correct grammar and punctuation.

Not really. Ask your questions on this forum.

 

[jutfrank]

It is a manual for anyone who writes in English.

I disagree.

Well,actually it is. It is one of the four or five guides recommended or even prescribed by many British universities for those writing dissertations.

That does not make it authoritative. I wonder what sense of 'authoritative' you're using.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I wonder what sense of 'authoritative' you're using.

Webster New World's Dictionary, Third College Edition defines it as:

1 having or showing authority, official
2 based on competent authority; reliable because coming from one who is an expert or properly qualified . . .
3 asserting authority; fond of giving orders; dictatorial​

I'm using the second sense.

Speaking of authoritative, the New World dictionaries departed from the police role of earlier American dictionaries. An early edition explained that its job "was not to create the impression that it was authoritarian, laying down the law; it was to play, rather, the role of a friendly guide, pointing out the safe, well-traveled roads."

That's why one if its definitions of literally is figuratively.

So you might call it non-authoritatively authoritative.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I suspect that you're referring to usage guides . . .

Yes.

 

[jutfrank]

Thanks, but I know what Webster's Dictionary says. My point is about what constitutes an expert. If you want to know about grammar, talk to a grammar expert. If you want to know about how language works in general, talk to a linguist. These people do not tell you what to say, they just tell you what other people say.

If you want somebody to tell you what to say, then don't go to a grammarian or linguist because they are not experts at that. You should ask somebody who is a relevant expert at telling people what to say, such as a teacher. If you're an EFL learner, you can ask an expert EFL teacher, not somebody whose job is to edit newspapers!

Where on earth are you getting this idea that editors, or journalists, or writers, are experts? Experts on what?

I'm not saying that writers and people who teach writing have no expertise in anything, and I'm not saying that they do not have absolutely brilliant and invaluable advice about writing. I'm only saying that they are not experts in linguistics. This is my point from the very beginning. That person Diana Whateverhernameis has no right to be making untrue statements about an area she knows little about. I have no issue at all with the people at Chicago Manual.

And please let's remember who style guides are written for, and why.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Thanks, but I know what Webster's Dictionary says. My point is about what constitutes an expert. If you want to know about grammar, talk to a grammar expert. If you want to know about how language works in general, talk to a linguist. These people do not tell you what to say, they just tell you what other people say.

If you want somebody to tell you what to say, then don't go to a grammarian or linguist because they are not experts at that. You should ask somebody who is a relevant expert at telling people what to say, such as a teacher. If you're an EFL learner, you can ask an expert EFL teacher, not somebody whose job is to edit newspapers!

Where on earth are you getting this idea that editors, or journalists, or writers, are experts? Experts on what?

I'm not saying that writers and people who teach writing have no expertise in anything, and I'm not saying that they do not have absolutely brilliant and invaluable advice about writing. I'm only saying that they are not experts in linguistics. This is my point from the very beginning. That person Diana Whateverhernameis has no right to be making untrue statements about an area she knows little about. I have no issue at all with the people at Chicago Manual.

And please let's remember who style guides are written for, and why.

That's all interesting, but I still want commas separating independent clauses. (See? There was one just now.)

I've shown you two books that say to do it, and I've asked you to show me one that says not to. (Woops. Another! I'm incorrigible! . . .)

 

[jutfrank]

That's all interesting, but I still want commas separating independent clauses. (See? There was one just now.)

I've shown you two books that say to do it, and I've asked you to show me one that says not to.

It seems I've still not made myself understood. I can't show you any book that says not to because nobody in their right mind would ever say that.

The point is that it is not necessary to do so. You don't have to use a comma before a coordiniating conjunction and you don't have to not use a comma before a coordinating conjunction. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about whether you should or shouldn't.

Is that clear?

Diana Hacker says that you must use one. That is incorrect and very wrong. She also says that a comma before a coordinating conjunction signals to the reader that another coordinating clause will follow. That is incorrect and wrong. And you yourself say in post #9 that clauses in compound sentences need to be separated with a comma. That is also incorrect. It may well be that some sentences will benefit heavily from such a comma placement, but it is not true that all compound sentences 'need' to be separated with a comma.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It seems I've still not made myself understood. I can't show you any book that says not to because nobody in their right mind would ever say that.

The point is that it is not necessary to do so. You don't have to use a comma before a coordiniating conjunction and you don't have to not use a comma before a coordinating conjunction. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about whether you should or shouldn't.

Is that clear?

Diana Hacker says that you must use one. That is incorrect and very wrong. She also says that a comma before a coordinating conjunction signals to the reader that another coordinating clause will follow. That is incorrect and wrong. And you yourself say in post #9 that clauses in compound sentences need to be separated with a comma. That is also incorrect. It may well be that some sentences will benefit heavily from such a comma placement, but it is not true that all compound sentences 'need' to be separated with a comma.

All good!