[Grammar] Comma use

[IHIVG]

If you read most of the threads regarding commas, almost everyone replies in a way that says 'Personally, I would prefer...'

Of course, everyone can say that. We can use incorrect/correct grammar/punctuation and then say: 'to each their own', or 'it's a matter of personal choice'. It's still ok, and no one would ever call it 'a great sin'. But why do the rules exist then in the first place? We can very well apply 'agree to disagree' tactic of course, but the point is whether there IS a grammar rule or it's up to a writer to decide where to use or not use a punctuation mark. I think if there is a certain rule, we should not mislead ourselves and others by denying that one does not exist.

 

[Barb_D]

While much of grammar is indeed "rules" much of punctuation is "style."

I would agree with Linguist that the times when a comma is "forbidden" are the same times when something ELSE is appropriate.

The only time I strongly object to a comma that is not supposed to be there is when it separates a straight-forward subject from a straight-forward predicate, and when it's a comma splice.

The owner of the house, is away on a trip. That would be a big no.
I like football, she likes basketball. That would a big no, but for a different reason -- it requires a semi-colon, a full stop, or a conjunction.

If you have a very long and complex subject OR complex dual predicate, then the comma can help your reader navigate. "Okay, leaving the first part, and moving on to the second part now. Got it."

My goal is clear communication, a "rule" that trumps all others.

 

[Raymott]

I would probably never know it if you hadn't told me. Thanks.

Then I probably should point it out more often. Maybe far many more people than I've noticed consider it normal.

 

[billmcd]

I prefer nwalford's ".....waived and, almost immediately, he......"

 

[Allen165]

OK, that makes sense.
True, if nwalford is right, then I am wrong.
You'll note that Barb disagreed with nwalford (in the following post) that this comma was 'incorrect'. I also disagree.
I believe it is optional - unnecessary, but correct if I want to use it.

If you have anything more authoritative, I might change my mind.

In case you're still interested, here's what Patricia O'Conner replied:

It's sometimes legitimate to use a comma in a sentence in which two verbs share a single subject. We might do this, for example, if the sentence is long and complicated, or if a comma would avoid confusion.

Here's how this use of the comma is described in The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.)

"A comma is not normally used between the parts of a compound predicate--that is, two or more verbs having the same subject, as distinct from two independent clauses--though it may occasionally be needed to avoid misreading or to indicate a pause."

The example given: "She recognized the man who entered the room, and gasped."

If I were editing those sentences you quote, would I have kept the final commas? Yes and no. I think you could make a case for the commas in sentences 1 and 3, which seem to need pauses, but not in #2.

The sentences I quoted were the following:

The wide-eyed, baby-faced Beaubois continues to work hard in
practice, and has begun to make his mark in a crowded and
deep rookie class.

The Bobcats have spent much of the season with the NBA's
best defense, and are likely to make the playoffs.

Despite the setback, however, Milwaukee remains in solid
position to nab a surprise playoff berth, and could find
itself seeded as high as fifth.

 

[Raymott]

If I were editing those sentences you quote, would I have kept the final commas? Yes and no. I think you could make a case for the commas in sentences 1 and 3, which seem to need pauses, but not in #2.

This would be more instructive if we knew what the three sentences you gave her were.

 

[Allen165]

This would be more instructive if we knew what the three sentences you gave her were.

You must have read my last post very selectively because I posted those three sentences.

 

[Allen165]

This would be more instructive if we knew what the three sentences you gave her were.

Have a look at rule number 13 on this site for a couple of examples: Purdue OWL

 

[Raymott]

You must have read my last post very selectively because I posted those three sentences.

Oh, I see. Sorry.
I thought we were interested in Ms O'Conner's opinion on:
1. ...waived, and almost immediately he left the country (One comma)
2. ...waived and, almost immediately, he left the country (Two commas)
3. ...waived, and, almost immediately, he left the country (Three commas)
At least I would have been. (That's probably why I missed your quoted sentences)
The three sentences you gave her all have an optional comma before 'and', which she seems to agree are optional, and, in the absence of ambiguity, a matter of style.
Is that how you see it?

 

[Allen165]

Oh, I see. Sorry.
I thought we were interested in Ms O'Conner's opinion on:
1. ...waived, and almost immediately he left the country (One comma)
2. ...waived and, almost immediately, he left the country (Two commas)
3. ...waived, and, almost immediately, he left the country (Three commas)
At least I would have been. (That's probably why I missed your quoted sentences)
The three sentences you gave her all have an optional comma before 'and', which she seems to agree are optional, and, in the absence of ambiguity, a matter of style.
Is that how you see it?

Yes, but my point is that there is a rule saying that one does not, in principle, put a comma between the parts of a compound predicate. You originally refuted the existence of such a rule.

However, the fact that reasons of clarity or style may permit the use of a comma pretty much undermines the rule, as one can always say, "Well, I intended to create a pause there"; it's a "weak" rule.

 

[Raymott]

Yes, but my point is that there is a rule saying that one does not, in principle, put a comma between the parts of a compound predicate. You originally refuted the existence of such a rule.
Ah, OK.
That's right. If such a rule exists, it's a silly rule.
And, if I read her correctly, O'Conner also does not regard this as a "rule", but perhaps a general guideline - "don't do it unless you have a reason."

R.