Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

newbie...@yahoo.com.tw wrote:

The comma is wrong; it should not be there. As to why it is there, one
can only guess, but probably it was because the writer was not a native
speaker.

There are rules, but they need to be used with discretion. Three of the
simplest are the following :

1. Don't separate the subject of a sentence or clause from its verb
with a single comma (two may be OK: see next rule). This rule is
violated in your example.

2. When a part of a sentence can be regarded as parenthetic, i.e. it
could logically be enclosed in ( ), though often it isn't, then it can
be enclosed with a pair of commas, unless it occurs at the end of a
sentence, in which case the closing full stop (period) is sufficient to
close the parenthesis.

3. In a list of items, as in "carrots, potatoes, meat, chewing gum,
bananas and cheese", separate the items with commas. Many people, but
not everyone, consider there should also be a comma before the "and"
that terminates the list.

athel

Probably because the person who wrote it is a moron.

Never put a comma between a subject and its verb unless you also add
another comma to create a parenthesis (an additional phrase that is
inserted and could be removed without affecting the grammar of the
sentence), like this:

    I think that the level of a question, in terms of its
    difficulty, should be reflected in the  number of marks it is
    worth.

It's still horrible, though. Try something like this:

    I think that the degree of difficulty of a question should be
    reflected in the number of marks it is worth.

Or, even better, let's just say what we mean:

    The harder the question, the more marks it should be worth.

In our last episode,
<1169025381.243613.296110@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented newbie_tw@yahoo.com.tw
broadcast on alt.usage.english:

It is wrong as it is, and a comma after "that" would only make matters
worse.

Either the comma must be paired correctly:

"I think that the level of a question, in terms of its
difficulty, should be reflected in the number of marks it is worth."

Or it can be omitted altogether:

"I think that the level of a question in terms of its
difficulty should be reflected in the number of marks it is worth."

I do not see any way a comma after "that" could be made correct.

Somewhat parenthetical material can be set off by commas.  That requires a
pair of commas unless the material comes at the beginning or end of the
sentence.  If such material is removed from the sentence, the sentence will
still be correct.  Some modern styles allow the omission of many commas once
thought necessary, but in such cases both of the commas must be omitted or
both must be used.

No unpaired commas may occur between the subject and predicate of a clause.

In this particular example the problem seems to be that "level" seems, at
least to the author, to require further explaination.  Perhaps the whole
sentence should be recast:

I think the difficulty of questions should be reflected in the number of
marks questions are worth.

I think difficult questions should be worth more.

Difficult questions should be worth more.

There are two obvious choices, neither of them with a comma after 'that':

1) No comma at all:
"I think that the level of a question in terms of its difficulty should
be reflected in the number of marks it is worth."

1) Two commas:
"I think that the level of a question, in terms of its difficulty,
should be reflected in the number of marks it is worth."

I can't imagine why you would want to put a comma after that.
There is no reason to break
  "I think that <what you think>."
with such a comma
  "I think that, <what you think>."

The original is, however, broken and needs fixing.