I overuse commas.

[5jj]

I saw a car of blue colour.

That is not correct English.

 

[Tarheel]

The word is "reply".

Neither of your sentences is natural. Perhaps:

I saw a blue car.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks for the replay reply, but this thread is old now.

It doesn't matter that it's an old thread. Other users might still be reading the responses.

During the Meanwhile, I have already found my answer: Polish and English punctuation are alike.

Either start with "Meanwhile" or use "In the meantime".

If I learn improve my Polish punctuation, better, then I will know my English punctuation will be better.

That's possibly true. However, I suspect the punctuation rules aren't identical.

In English, they just prefers sentence structure without a comma, but, as I have now found out, I can write Polish sentences without a comma also.

What makes you think that sentences without commas are preferable in English?

The sentence below has not does not have a comma, but I can change it after the Polish manner:

I don't know what the underlined part means.

I saw a car of blue colour.
I saw a car, which was blue.

The first is wrong. The second is grammatically correct but you probably wouldn't hear many people use it. Of course, the natural choice is "I saw a blue car".

Now, I can modify the same sentence in Polish, so it has and has not a comma.

To be honest, it really doesn't matter on this forum what you choose to do with your punctuation in Polish!

 

[xXx_Antoni_xXx_PL]

“In English, they just prefers sentence structure (...)”
It is weird that English treats “English“ as a person. I suppose it makes sense, since the word is capitalized.

What makes you think that sentences without commas are preferable in English?

English does not want a comma before “that”. English even lets you to omit “that”.
I think that the car is blue. → I think the car is blue.

I don't know what the underlined part means.

Polish prefers sentences with a comma, so the Polish way is to split the sentence with a comma.

The first [sentence] is wrong.

This is the 3rd person pointing out that the sentence is incorrect: is it really this bad? Would it be any better, if I included “the”? I was thinking about “the” before I committed my reply:
I saw a car of blue colour. → I saw a car of the blue colour.

 

[Glizdka]

Hi, Antoni!

I can totally sympathize with you as a fellow learner from Poland, so let me add my two cents, or three groszes. You basically have to relearn the punctuation rules, which is tough, but what's even tougher is to unlearn the rules you're already familiar with!

You're right that the punctuation rules in Polish and English are very similar. That's good news because it means you don't have to start from scratch and can apply what you already know from Polish. That isn't to say the two punctuation rule sets are the same. There are areas where Polish and English treat commas very differently. Pay close attention to these differences!

The areas in which English differs from Polish the most in this regard are, from my experience, conjunctions and relative pronouns. You should focus on these first, in my opinion, as it will fix most of your mistakes.

English tends to omit some conjunctions and relative pronouns, something that at first glance might seem odd to a native speaker of Polish, a language in which these are rarely, if ever, omitted. Learn when the omission happens, and it will make it much easier to adapt to the punctuation rules in English.

Another thing is that Polish uses commas before all conjunctions and relative pronouns. Simple and effective. It's a common strategy for Polish teachers to make their students memorize a list of these words, and explain to them that they should always use a comma before them. It becomes a reflex for learners from Poland. You need to unlearn that reflex.

English does not always use a comma before every conjunction or relative pronoun. Some of them simply don't require a comma, and it doesn't matter whether you use it or not. Some, on the other hand, shouldn't have a comma before them, and it would be considered a mistake. And, finally, some change their meaning depending on whether you use a comma! For instance, "My cousin, who lives in Boston, has a degree in physics" and "My cousin who lives in Boston has a degree in physics" are different in meaning precisely because of the commas.

Then, you need to keep in mind that there are many style guides, which may recommend different... erm... comma intensity. Some people are what we could call comma minimalists, and they use far fewer commas than others. There are also those who tend to saturate their sentences with commas. This is possible because it's often a simple matter of preference.

It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with your punctuation marks because you like it that way, however. The key thing here is consistency. You need to understand what a comma does in your sentence and its effect on how your reader might interpret your words. After all, commas are meant to help the writer express what they want to say, and the reader understand what the writer meant.

What I can recommend is finding a style guide whose rules make sense to you and following it. Once you become proficient at applying these rules, only then should you think of tweaking them to your liking, so that you adapt your use of the comma to your writing style. One guide I could point you towards is this one: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/index.html

 

[5jj]

I saw a car of blue colour. → I saw a car of the blue colour.

Neither of those is possible in English.

 

[emsr2d2]

“In English, they just prefers sentence structure (...)”
It is weird that English treats “English“ as a person. I suppose it makes sense, since the word is capitalized.

I changed it because "they just prefer" didn't give us any clue as to who "they" are. I could have written "In English, it's preferable to use a sentence structure ...". I'm sure there will be people who don't agree with my "English prefers".

English does not want use a comma before “that”. English even lets you to omit “that”.

When we say "let someone do something", we use the bare infinitive, not the to-infinitive.

I think that the car is blue. → I think the car is blue.

Yes, that's correct. In fact, most people would omit "that".

Polish prefers sentences with a comma, so the Polish way is to split the sentence with a comma.

OK, but you need to stop thinking about Polish punctuation!

This is the 3rd third person pointing who has pointed out that the sentence is incorrect. Is it really this that bad?

Note my corrections above. In English, numbers (both cardinal and ordinal) between zero and twenty are written in words not digits. The colon wasn't appropriate after "incorrect". You needed two separate sentences. You can consider "that bad" as a set phrase in this context.

Would it be any better no comma here if I included “the”? I was thinking about “the” before I committed my reply:

You're still thinking about Polish comma usage. No comma was required in the first sentence.

I saw a car of blue colour. → I saw a car of the blue colour.

Both are wrong.

 

[xXx_Antoni_xXx_PL]

The areas in which English differs from Polish the most in this regard are, from my experience, conjunctions and relative pronouns. You should focus on these first, in my opinion, as it will fix most of your mistakes.

It is sad. I always thought that omitting articles would be my biggest problem.

Another thing is that Polish uses commas before all conjunctions and relative pronouns. Simple and effective. It's a common strategy for Polish teachers to make their students memorize a list of these words, and explain to them that they should always use a comma before them.

I always thought that this is stupid. A comma is like an open parenthesis – it has to be closed. They did not teach me that in Polish classes. English classes did not have punctuation lessons whatsoever.
A car, which was blue, hit a tree → A car (which was blue) hit a tree → A car hit a tree.

And, finally, some [conjunction or relative pronoun] change their meaning depending on whether you use a comma!

I do not think that a comma can change meaning considerably. If I wanted to change the meaning, then I would use a parenthesis.
My cousin who lives in Boston has a degree in physics. → My cousin (who lives in Boston) has a degree in physics

One guide I could point you towards is this one: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/index.html

Thanks, I will definitely check this out

 

[5jj]

I do not think that a comma can change meaning considerably.

It can

If I wanted to change the meaning, then I would use a parenthesis.

That is your choice, though you would be better off using two parentheses.

 

[Glizdka]

I always thought that omitting articles would be my biggest problem.

Honestly? I think it probably will. It's very common for learners from Poland to misuse articles in English simply because Polish does not have them at all!

Even after some 25 years of learning English, having lived in the US for some time, and using it daily because of the nature of my job, I still can't say I've fully grasped what articles are, why we need them, or what exactly they do. I sometimes make such silly mistakes that they make me doubt whether I understand how English works at all. It's partially why Ralphie from The Simpsons, being told he's failing English, is my avatar on this forum. I sometimes feel like Ralph when I read what I've written.

I always thought that this is stupid.

It’s your prerogative to consider things stupid. However, trying to understand why things are the way they are, rather than simply judging them, will make you much better at using them.

A comma is like an open parenthesis – it has to be closed.

The comma is arguably the most versatile punctuation mark, with a wide range of uses. There's considerable overlap between how the comma can be used and how the parentheses, en/em dash, colon, and other punctuation marks are used. The choice comes down to your preference and the writing style you follow.

Some people, like me, tend to use the comma a lot, and attribute a plethora of functions to it, treating it like a Swiss Army knife. Others prefer to rely on different punctuation marks and avoid burdening the poor little comma with so many roles.

If you don't like using a comma to provide additional information, use parentheses instead.
If you don’t like using it to interrupt a sentence, use an em dash instead.
If you don’t like using it to introduce examples or lists, use a colon instead.

It's all up to you. Work on your writing style, try different approaches, and see what works for you. You don't have to do the figuring out all by yourself, though. Countless people have already explored how to use punctuation effectively. Take advantage of their work and stand on the shoulders of these giants. Consult different style guides and learn from them.

They did not teach me that in Polish classes. English classes did not have punctuation lessons whatsoever.

Tell me about it!

I do not think that a comma can change meaning considerably.

Yes, it can.

 

[Skrej]

I do not think that a comma can change meaning considerably.

Let's eat, Grandma!
Let's eat Grandma!

It certainly makes a huge difference to Grandma.

 

[Glizdka]

Help your uncle, Jack, off the horse.
Help your uncle jack off the horse.

 

[jutfrank]

Knowing punctuation is knowing the difference between knowing your sh*t and knowing you're sh*t.