Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

} On 16 Jan 2004, Mark Brader wrote
}
}> Newsweek:
}>>>> NEWSWEEK has learned that Cirque du Soleil, the human circus
}>>>> troupe that already has three Vegas shows and is opening a
}>>>> fourth this summer, has held meetings to think about a fifth.
}>
}> Michael Hamm:
}>>> The main part of the sentence refers back to the parenthetical;
}>>> i.e., without the parenthetical, the main part of the sentence
}>>> would make no sense ('fifth' what?).
}>
}> So what?
}
}>  
}>> Bad in my books.
}  
}> Perfectly normal, I say.  If the parenthetical was actually in
}> parentheses, *then* it might be bad, but commas don't separate
}> things that strongly.
}
} Our mileage clearly differs:  I consider the principle to be exactly
} the same.
}
} A "comma-separated comment" is an aside -- albeit not as removed from
} the main thought as one set off by parentheses or dashes -- and, as
} such, it should be removable without leaving any trace in the sentence.

Says you and what army?  Would it be better English if the original had
been:

   NEWSWEEK has learned that Cirque du Soleil, the human circus
   troupe that already has three Vegas shows and is opening a
   fourth this summer, has held meetings to think about a fifth
   Vegas show besides the three already open and the other one
   opening this summer.

eh?  That fits your rule (which isn't a rule in English usage).  A better
rule is, if there is a pronoun in the main part, it should be expanded if
the parenthetical part contains the antecedent.  The pronoun here is
"one".  Some people miss it because it isn't there.