[Grammar] Comma after "but"

[DANAU]

Hi.

I wrote the sentence below. I would like to understand if comma can be placed after "but" for parenthetical sentence structure.
Please check if below sentence is correct.

"The company had plan to expand its business in Europe but, in view of current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

 

[tedmc]

1. has plans (plural preferred)
2. The commas are correctly placed to set off the non-definning clause.

 

[GoesStation]

The commas are correct. Are you writing about a specific current economic slowdown?

 

[TheParser]

"The company had plan to expand its business in Europe but, in view of current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

NOT A TEACHER

I believe that a comma is usually preferred before the word "but": "The company had plans to expand, but it has decided to reconsider its strategy." (In speech, it would be natural to briefly pause after "expand.")

Thus, you might consider a rewrite such as: "The company had plans to expand its business in Europe, but -- because of the current economic slowdown -- it has decided to reconsider its growth strategy" or "The company had plans to expand its business in Europe, but it has decided to reconsider its growth strategy because of the current economic slowdown."

 

[Tdol]

You could use:

"The company had plan to expand its business in Europe, but, in view of current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

 

[GoesStation]

You could use:

"The company had plan to expand its business in Europe, but, in view of current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

It has to be planned, plans, or a plan.

 

[jutfrank]

1) The phrase in view of economic slowdown is neither parenthetical nor a non-defining clause.

2) The comma after but is not necessary if this piece is intended as part of a piece of writing. It's up to the reader how he/she wants to read it. The only reason to put a comma after but is to force the reader to hear the sentence in the way that you're pronouncing it. I don't think you should do that.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

You could use:

"The company had planned to expand its business in Europe, but, in view of current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

I'd have a comma before but not after. I've read in at least one style book not to surround conjunctions with commas — maybe just reads more smoothly.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Dannau -

Also remember this bit of grammar: The parts of compound sentences need to be separated with commas and must have one conjunction: I like tomatoes, but I don't like ketchup.

We know your sentence is compound because if you used a period instead of but, it would be two complete sentences.

 

[emsr2d2]

Hi.

I wrote the sentence below. I would like to understand if a comma can be placed after "but" for a parenthetical sentence structure.
Please check if the sentence below [STRIKE]sentence[/STRIKE] is correct.

"The company had plans/planned to expand its business in Europe but, in view of the current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

Please note my corrections above. I'm sure I said in one of your previous threads that "the sentence below" is the standard word order in these situations.

 

[jutfrank]

Also remember this bit of grammar: The parts of compound sentences need to be separated with commas and must have one conjunction: I like tomatoes, but I don't like ketchup.

Sorry, Charlie, but that's not right at all. It depends what kind of compound.

No comma is necessary to separate two independent clauses (clauses connected by but/and/or and others).
No comma is necessary when a dependent clause follows an independent clause.

The 'grammatical' rule is to place a comma when a dependent clause precedes an independent one.

Here:

You don't need a comma if a dependent clause follows an independent clause.

If an independent clause follows a dependent clause, you need a comma.

In the second sentence above, the reason for the comma is to show the break in speech that indicates to the listener that the clauses don't follow the 'normal' logical sequence.

None of this means that you can't use a comma if you want to lead the reader into making pauses in certain places, of course. In the example sentence in the OP, the first comma is non-grammatical (it's purely the writer's choice) but the second comma is grammatical.

 

[DANAU]

The commas are correct. Are you writing about a specific current economic slowdown?

Hi GoesStation, I am referring to general economic slowdown without specifics.

 

[DANAU]

Sorry, Charlie, but that's not right at all. It depends what kind of compound.

No comma is necessary to separate two independent clauses (clauses connected by but/and/or and others).
No comma is necessary when a dependent clause follows an independent clause.

The 'grammatical' rule is to place a comma when a dependent clause precedes an independent one.

Here:

You don't need a comma if a dependent clause follows an independent clause.

If an independent clause follows a dependent clause, you need a comma.

In the second sentence above, the reason for the comma is to show the break in speech that indicates to the listener that the clauses don't follow the 'normal' logical sequence.

None of this means that you can't use a comma if you want to lead the reader into making pauses in certain places, of course. In the example sentence in the OP, the first comma is non-grammatical (it's purely the writer's choice) but the second comma is grammatical.

Yes jutfrank, it is my choice to break the sentence because I am trying to learn parenthetical break, and I want to check where the comma should be placed when there is conjunction in such a sentence structure.

 

[GoesStation]

I am referring to general economic slowdown without specifics.

I think you're talking about a specific economic slowdown: the one that started as the covid-19 pandemic spread. Which article would that require?

 

[bubbha]

I prefer the use of a semicolon here. (Note the additional corrections.)

"The company had plans to expand its business in Europe; but, in view of the current economic slowdown, it has to reconsider its growth strategy."

 

[DANAU]

I think you're talking about a specific economic slowdown: the one that started as the covid-19 pandemic spread. Which article would that require?

Hi GoesStation.

There is a need for “the” in front of “current economic slowdown”.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Sorry, Charlie, but that's not right at all. It depends what kind of compound.

No comma is necessary to separate two independent clauses (clauses connected by but/and/or and others).

Then you'd better alert these folks:

Use a comma before a coordinating conjuction joining independent clauses.

When a coordinating conjunction connects two or more word groups that could stand alone as separate sentences, a comma must precede it. There are seven coordinating conjunctions in English: and, but, or, nor, for, so, and yet.

A comma tells readers that one independent clause has come to a close and that another is about to begin.

Nearly everyone has heard of love at first sight, but I fell in love at first dance."

A Writer's Reference, Third Edition - Hacker

(My bold.)​

. . . and:

When independent clauses are joined by and, but, or, so, yet, or any other conjuction, a comma usually precedes the conjunction. If the clauses are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted.

We bolted the door, but the intruder was already inside.

Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition

(My bold.)​

No comma is necessary when a dependent clause follows an independent clause.

I know. Didn't say it was.

The 'grammatical' rule is to place a comma when a dependent clause precedes an independent one.

I know. Didn't say not to.

And a heads-up, in case you run into any other American Charlies: Please, please, please, say ANYTHING but, "Sorry, Charlie"!

Sorry, Jut!

 

[jutfrank]

Use a comma before a coordinating conjuction joining independent clauses.

When a coordinating conjunction connects two or more word groups that could stand alone as separate sentences, a comma must precede it. There are seven coordinating conjunctions in English: and, but, or, nor, for, so, and yet.

A comma tells readers that one independent clause has come to a close and that another is about to begin.

Hacker has got it seriously wrong, unfortunately. I've highlighted the parts that are flagrantly false.

Who is he? An editor? I wouldn't bother with this kind of extreme prescriptivism. It seems he has little idea what he's talking about.


When independent clauses are joined by and, but, or, so, yet, or any other conjuction, a comma usually precedes the conjunction. If the clauses are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted.

Yes, that all sounds reasonable. Not too much to argue with there except the word 'usually'. I doubt that's true.

And a heads-up, in case you run into any other American Charlies: Please, please, please, say ANYTHING but, "Sorry, Charlie"!

Oops. I had no idea. Sorry, Mr Bernstein.

 

[Tarheel]

Hi GoesStation.

There is a need for “the” in front of “current economic slowdown”.

Yes, but there is no need for "current" there.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Hacker has got it seriously wrong, unfortunately. I've highlighted the parts that are flagrantly false.

Who is he? An editor? I wouldn't bother with this kind of extreme prescriptivism. It seems he has little idea what he's talking about.

Diana Hacker was (obviously?) a grammarian. This handbook is the one that every department at my university was required to abide by - students and faculty. My understanding is that its popular at other institutions, too.

Remember: American English uses commas more than British does. When I read British writers, what I see is that if a sentence's meaning will be clear without a comma, you leave them out. Nothing wrong with that. Economical. But there's nothing wrong with Diana Hacker, either.

When independent clauses are joined by and, but, or, so, yet, or any other conjuction, a comma usually precedes the conjunction. If the clauses are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted.Yes, that all sounds reasonable. Not too much to argue with there except the word 'usually'. I doubt that's true.

It's saying the same thing as Hacker, but with more nuance and leeway. The Hacker handbook I quoted is concise. (She also wrote bigger grammar books.) It's made to fit easily into a book bag or briefcase. At over 1,100 pages, Chicago weighs too much for daily trundling - and few students would open it.

But sure, if you feel up to arguing with Chicago, argue away! If you can find a higher authority than Chicago Manual, tell me what it is. (I have looked at Cambridge Grammar, just for entertainment. It's another amazing book, but an altogether different animal: more descriptive, less prescriptive.)

Oops. I had no idea. Sorry, Mr Bernstein.

Not offended! How could you know? Just say something else around American Charlies! You have no idea how often we hear it, snark always intended.

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

We live, we learn!