Punctuation: gapping commas

[red an' dead]

Hello,

for anybody who's interested I believe I have altered my profile to good effect.
I still find gaping gaping commas a bit troublesome, however.

In 'The Penguin guid to punctuation' the following sentence illustrates my dilemma somewhat.

Yet, outside that door, lay a whole new world. is regarded as incorrect because if the words outside..door within the gapping commas are removed the result does not make sense e.g. Yet lay a whole new world. My problem, however, is that when Yet is removed from the sentence the rest does make sense. Am I right in my analysis? I mean can Yet be regarded as a 'weak interruption' (which should be the case, in my opinon).

 

[MikeNewYork]

Hello,

for anybody who's interested I believe I have altered
my profile to good effect.
I still find gaping gaping commas a bit troublesome, however.
In 'The Penguin guid to punctuation' the following sentence illustrates
my dilemma somewhat. Yet, outside that door,
lay a whole new world. is regarded as incorrect because ifthe words outside..door within the gapping commas are removed the
result does not make sense e.g. Yet lay a whole new world. My problem,
however, is that when Yet is removed from the sentence the rest doesmake
sense. Am I right in my analysis? I mean can Yet be regarded as a 'weak interruption' (which
should be the case, in my opinon).

The comma after "yet" is fine. The other is not.

 

[red an' dead]

The comma after "yet" is fine. The other is not.

Thanks.

 

[red an' dead]

The comma after "yet" is fine. The other is not.

Thanks

How about the following? There and then, that second encounter, where to have happened, should have hit me like a ton of bricks. Can I consider the sentence to have two weak interruptions so that that second encounter, should have hit me like a ton of bricks? is legitimate and stands up to scrutiny? I beginning to think, myself, that weak interruptions are are matter of interpretation!

 

[MikeNewYork]

How about the following? There and then, that second encounter, where to have happened, should have hit me like a ton of bricks. Can I consider the sentence to have two weak interruptions so that that second encounter, should have hit me like a ton of bricks? is legitimate and stands up to scrutiny? I beginning to think, myself, that weak interruptions are are matter of interpretation!

I don't get the "where to have happened" part. Yes, except for some uses, comma usage has a lot of subjectivity in it.

 

[red an' dead]

I don't get the "where to have happened" part. Yes, except for some uses, comma usage has a lot of subjectivity in it.

Thanks for your reply: for taking the time. So far as "where to have happened', with that I took the liberty of employing a degree of 'poetic license' (If I can put it like that?). Prosaically speaking, it could be written for something like "and where it occurred/took place". I don't want to bang on about it, but that being the case would you consider the sentence acceptable? Would you consider it correctly structured?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thanks for your reply: for taking the time. So far as "where to have happened', with that I took the liberty of employing a degree of 'poetic license' (If I can put it like that?). Prosaically speaking, it could be written for something like "and where it occurred/took place". I don't want to bang on about it, but that being the case would you consider the sentence acceptable? Would you consider it correctly structured?

And thank you for changing your profile. We respect honesty here. With your current corrections to the original, the sentence is correct.

 

[konungursvia]

The comma after "yet" is fine. The other is not.

Sure it is. It's a pair of parenthetical commas. It doesn't matter what happens when you remove parts of the sentence, people can say it this way if they wish:

Yet (outside that door) [there] lay a whole new world.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Sure it is. It's a pair of parenthetical commas. It doesn't matter what happens when you remove parts of the sentence, people can say it this way if they wish:

Yet (outside that door) [there] lay a whole new world.

If one removes "outside that door", one is left with "yet lay a whole new world". That would not make sense. However, one could make the case that second comma is correct because it follows an adverbial phrase. There were just too many commas for me.