 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / March 2004Comma usage
Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is correct)? "or in some cases the solution is..." OR "or, in some cases, the solution is..." I tend to overuse my comma, and am unsure what is proper (or necessary) for today's writing. Thanks. > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. The fragment is OK either way to me. However, you should post the full sentence. One thing I have learned about English is that context is everything. Izzy I agree with Izzy that either formation is probably fine (and that the context may affect that answer). However, the phrase "I tend to overuse my comma" implies that you've only got the one, in which case you may want to save it for a rainy day. regards -Laura > > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Izzy > I agree with Izzy that either formation is probably fine (and that the > context may affect that answer). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regards > -Laura In an emergency he could use half a semi-colon. Izzy (BTW, why do you top-post? OE? > > > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > > > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Izzy << [STL] Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is correct)? "or in some cases the solution is..." OR "or, in some cases, the solution is..." I tend to overuse my comma, and am unsure what is proper (or necessary) for today's writing. [end quote] >> << [Laura Johnson] I agree with Izzy that either formation is probably fine (and that the context may affect that answer). However, the phrase "I tend to overuse my comma" implies that you've only got the one, in which case you may want to save it for a rainy day. [end quote] >> Maybe she uses the Feynman comma. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, as for the actual curly of the matter, I'll pass now. > I agree with Izzy that either formation is probably fine (and that the > context may affect that answer). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regards > -Laura I fully agree. It's his exclamation point he should save for special occasions -:) John Ramsay [Old enough to remember when the interjection was called something else -:)] > > > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > > > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Izzy > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. Some style guides tell you never to put a comma after "and", "or", or "but". I generally go along. As Izzy mentioned, the answer depends on the whole sentence, but in this case I'd go for, well, I guess it's obvious. Another option is "or in some cases, the solution is...". A comma after an introductory phrase such as "in some cases" is pretty optional. Ask yourself whether it makes anything any clearer. If not, ask yourself whether you want readers to pause there. And keep in mind that some people, for reasons I've never understood, dislike punctuation and want you to minimize it. (Well, I understand why James Thurber disliked it--he had very bad vision and those hard-to-make-out marks bothered him.)  SignatureJerry Friedman > > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Some style guides tell you never to put a comma after "and", "or", or > "but". I generally go along. I doubt any style guides even considered that you'd want to do that. > > > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > > > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > I doubt any style guides even considered that you'd want to do that. The people at <http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm> say, "One of the most frequent errors in comma usage is the placement of a comma _after_ a coordinating conjunction." (Emphasis theirs.) They also say, "When a parenthetical element — an interjection, adverbial modifier, or even an adverbial clause — follows a coordinating conjunction used to connect two independent clauses, we do _not_ put a comma in front of the parenthetical element. [snip examples] (This last piece of advice relies on the authority of William Strunk's _Elements of Style_....)" SignatureJerry Friedman The second example is correct, based on the rule of "sentence interruption." I teach my students this phrase, "When in doubt leave it out." As far as the coordinating conjunction is concerned the rule is put a comma before the "and" "but" "or" when the two sentences are closely related: I went to the store, and they were out of toilet paper. > Can someone please correct me in the following example (which is > correct)? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks. "just al" <al_hammel@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rS7_b.3515$gk6.2549 @news02.roc.ny: > I teach my students this phrase, "When in doubt leave it out." Some teach their students this phrase: "When in doubt, leave it out." SignatureMike Nitabach I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving out the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; otherwise things get way too involved. > "just al" <al_hammel@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rS7_b.3515$gk6.2549 > @news02.roc.ny: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Mike Nitabach > I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving out > the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; otherwise > things get way too involved. Oy! Oy! Oy! SignatureMike Nitabach "Oy!" is a positive expression, right? American here. > > I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving out > > the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; otherwise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Mike Nitabach >>> I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving out >>> the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; otherwise [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Oy!" is a positive expression, right? American here. Sadly, no -- it expressed dismay at your sentence. For several reasons. By the way, I placed your post in chronological order, *under* the previous ones. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ So, how would you explain it? This is not a challenge I want to be a better teacher... > >>> I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving out > >>> the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; otherwise [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Skitt (in Hayward, California) > www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> >>> I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving >> >>> out the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So, how would you explain it? This is not a challenge I want to be > a better teacher... First of all, the custom in this group is to "bottom post". This is the practice of formatting replies so that your newly-written material comes after the material you are responding to. It is my understanding that your newsreader, Oulook Express, opens the message composition window with the cursor above the quoted replied-to post, so this is not completely your fault. You will need to manually move the cursor below the quoted post you are replying to before beginning to type. With regard to the "Oy!s", I was not objecting to the idea you expressed (although I do disagree with it). Your sentence has a number of usage errors, one of which you repeated in your subsequent post. One way to rephrase your first sentence is as follows: "I know that a comma is required. However, freshman high school students are not sophisticated enough to understand why, and to try to explain would become too involved. That is why I would leave it out." In your second post, the second sentence could be correctly rewritten as follows: "This is not a challenge; I want to be a better teacher." SignatureMike Nitabach Thanks for the etiquette. I am new and am trying to become a better teacher. Unfortunately, the New York State teacher training program is less than adequate. I discovered this the first day in the classroom. I am a whiz at classroom management. I struggle with skills content. It's too late to point fingers or receive blame. It's time to improve and move forward--with plenty of bruises... Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately overshoot its mark. ) - 24 Feb 2004 01:02 GMT > >> >>> I know, but to teach freshman high school students, leaving > >> >>> out the comma in that sentence makes for sense to them; [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to explain would become too involved. That is why I would leave it > out." I think that changing people's sentences all around probably is less illustrative of the issue than is just fixing what is causing the concern, keeping whatever the solution to the problem is more literal than a complete or almost total rewrite does. > In your second post, the second sentence could be correctly rewritten > as follows: > > "This is not a challenge; I want to be a better teacher." This is also an interesting question because I think it is the genesis of a lot of what are considered run-on sentences. First of all, in isolation, the semicolon looks funny. Why not make two sentences? But, of course, the writer is really closely connecting the first with the second, even making the first, and this is where the trouble comes up, into some sort of null connected subordinate clause of the second. Bill Bonde wrote: >> In your second post, the second sentence could be correctly rewritten >> as follows: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > second, even making the first, and this is where the trouble comes up, > into some sort of null connected subordinate clause of the second. That is one of the cases where I would have used an m-dash, as the second part is clearly related to the first part. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately overshoot its mark. ) - 24 Feb 2004 21:12 GMT > Bill Bonde wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is one of the cases where I would have used an m-dash, as the second > part is clearly related to the first part. One of the problems I have with the dash, especially if used where you have to use hyphens in place of the real thing, is how the meanings are overloaded so wildly: http://cslab.ac.aup.fr/~writelab/grammarguides.htm #begin quote Check your dashes and hyphens. When you're setting off a clause--this one is a good example--use the longer dash, called an m-dash. (You can indicate this dash with two hyphens--like this--if you don't have an m-dash function on your computer.) Be sure that the parts of the sentence that precede and follow the dashes would make sense even if you removed the dashes and the words they bracket. (In the example above, the sentence is readable with or without the clause inside the dashes.) You can also use the m-dash in place of a colon if you want to emphasize more dramatically the words that follow: "The mantelpiece was lined with photographs of people she loved--her mother, her grandmother, a favorite aunt." Or you can use it to add a surprising element into a sentence: "Her family's photographs were displayed on the mantelpiece; there were pictures of parents, grandparents, and siblings--and of Muffin, a Yorkshire terrier." Whereas the m-dash is used to set off parts of a sentence, hyphens are used to join words together: broken-hearted, two-thirds, sister-in-law. #end quote Notice in the above how the dash is being used to set off a bit of text that isn't required for the sentence to make sense, is being used to show greater emphasis than even a colin, and is also the same mark being used, granted one at a time, to hyphenate words. That's some wildly different reactions that the reader is supposed to take from that one little piece of punctuation. In my sentence, #begin quote > Why not make two sentences? But, > of course, the writer is really closely connecting the first with the > second, even making the first, and this is where the trouble comes up, > into some sort of null connected subordinate clause of the second. #end quote it was suggested that I use a dash for the clause after 'first'. Let's look at that possibility: #begin quote Why not make two sentences? But, of course, the writer is really closely connecting the first with the second, even making the first--and this is where the trouble comes up-- into some sort of null connected subordinate clause of the second. #end quote Did that help the reader at all? I tend to think that it just created a punctuation effect that makes the reader think about the punctuation. Another idea was to make it a parenthetical aside: #begin quote Why not make two sentences? But, of course, the writer is really closely connecting the first with the second, even making the first (and this is where the trouble comes up) into some sort of null connected subordinate clause of the second. #end quote Did that help? When I read material with parentheses, I tend to skip the parenthetical comment and then go back and read it after finishing the rest of the sentence, or I will get lost in the aside and have to go back to the start and then skip over it the next time through. Either way, the fluidity of the sentence is obviously interrupted. There's a lot in this subject that can be argued about, I think. Bill Bonde wrote: >> Bill Bonde wrote: >>>> In your second post, the second sentence could be correctly >>>> rewritten as follows: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> That is one of the cases where I would have used an m-dash, as the >> second part is clearly related to the first part. I snipped a very good discussion of m-dashes, complete with supporting material, that ended with > There's a lot in this subject that can be argued about, I think. All I can say is that I'm influenced by the punctuation usage I was taught in childhood in a land far away. The m-dash was called, and I'm translating it literally, a "thought sign". That was meant to indicate that what followed it was a thought relating to what was written before (if I remember that correctly). That is why I suggested the m-dash for the sentence as rewritten by Michael, above. I am no punctuation expert with regard to AmE and BrE usages. (I was going to say "systems", but thought better of it.) I use what feels right to me. Fortunately, I don't write for publication. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > All I can say is that I'm influenced by the punctuation usage I was > taught in childhood in a land far away. The m-dash was called, and > I'm translating it literally, a "thought sign". That was meant to > indicate that what followed it was a thought relating to what was > written before (if I remember that correctly). That is why I > suggested the m-dash for the sentence as rewritten by Michael, above. But isn't everything in a sentence related by thought? > I am no punctuation expert with regard to AmE and BrE usages. (I was > going to say "systems", but thought better of it.) I use what feels > right to me. Fortunately, I don't write for publication. Style gurus, British and American, agree that a parenthetical clause can be set inside parentheses or inside a pair of dashes. The dashes usually impart more force to the interjected material (one of my style guides ascribes "violence" to pairs of dashes, bespeaking a rather delicate consititution, I think). By the way, you can stop referring to "m-dashes" in this regard, because the length of the dash is a typesetting issue rather than a usage issue. Dashes, long or short, are dashes, but they are not hyphens. SignatureMichael West >> All I can say is that I'm influenced by the punctuation usage I was >> taught in childhood in a land far away. The m-dash was called, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But isn't everything in a sentence related by thought? Well, yeah, but the dash for the sentence we were discussing really served to tie together what could have easily been two entirely separate sentences. Maybe I'm not communicating very well. >> I am no punctuation expert with regard to AmE and BrE usages. (I was >> going to say "systems", but thought better of it.) I use what feels [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > material (one of my style guides ascribes "violence" to pairs > of dashes, bespeaking a rather delicate consititution, I think). This case, though, was not about a parenthetical clause. > By the way, you can stop referring to "m-dashes" in this regard, > because the length of the dash is a typesetting issue rather than > a usage issue. Dashes, long or short, are dashes, but they are > not hyphens. I scrolled up to my previous paragraph and took care of that. You are right, of course. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately overshoot its mark. ) - 25 Feb 2004 17:16 GMT > >> All I can say is that I'm influenced by the punctuation usage I was > >> taught in childhood in a land far away. The m-dash was called, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, yeah, but the dash for the sentence we were discussing really served > to tie together what could have easily been two entirely separate sentences. This is why I said in another post that the use of the semicolon in isolation looked even more strange than using a semicolon usually is. > Maybe I'm not communicating very well. I think you are communicating fine. > >> I am no punctuation expert with regard to AmE and BrE usages. (I was > >> going to say "systems", but thought better of it.) I use what feels [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This case, though, was not about a parenthetical clause. If you look at the other poster' quote right above, other than to show you the use of parentheses, what was the port of using the parentheses? I ask myself this question most times when I find I've used parentheses in a first draft. Bill Bonde wrote: >>>> All I can say is that I'm influenced by the punctuation usage I was >>>> taught in childhood in a land far away. The m-dash was called, and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > parentheses? I ask myself this question most times when I find I've > used parentheses in a first draft. Ah, I really am not communicating well. I was referring to the original sentence when I wrote "This case". Parenthetical clauses were not involved. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >By the way, you can stop referring to "m-dashes" in this regard, >because the length of the dash is a typesetting issue rather than >a usage issue. Dashes, long or short, are dashes, but they are >not hyphens. Unless you want to consider en-dashes, of course. David >> By the way, you can stop referring to "m-dashes" in this regard, >> because the length of the dash is a typesetting issue rather than >> a usage issue. Dashes, long or short, are dashes, but they are >> not hyphens. > > Unless you want to consider en-dashes, of course. No, they're not an exception. Em dashes are long dashes, en dashes are short dashes. They're both longer than hyphens. SignatureMichael West >>> By the way, you can stop referring to "m-dashes" in this regard, >>> because the length of the dash is a typesetting issue rather than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >en dashes are short dashes. They're both longer than >hyphens. Of course -- that's what their names mean. But you can't just say "dash" without ambiguity. Em- and en-dashes have different usages, so the length of the dash is not just a typesetting issue. (Actually, I would use the terms to distinguish the usages, and leave the physical length as a typesetting issue.) It was just a quibble, and I guess you're covered by "in this regard" anyway. David >>>> By the way, you can stop referring to "m-dashes" in this regard, >>>> because the length of the dash is a typesetting issue rather than [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > usages, so the length of the dash is not just a typesetting > issue. If you're distinguishing between em dashes and en dashes, you're setting type -- whether you're doing it digitally or mechanically. A writer need only know when to use a dash. It is the compositer who needs to worry about whether the occasion calls for an em or an en, based on the house style. You will find that in some houses, spaced en dashes are used as an equivalent to unspaced em dashes. It isn't something a writer has to be concerned with. SignatureMichael West Michael West infrared: >No, they're not an exception. Em dashes are long dashes, >en dashes are short dashes. They're both longer than >hyphens. Lately I've heard - on the ABC, no less - the word "dash" used by TV announcers to mean "hyphen" when specifying a URL. "H T T P colon forward slash forward slash english dash usage ...." The "forward slash" also sounds a bit strange, but I'm learning to live with it. SignaturePeter Moylan Peter.Moylan@newcastle.edu.au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately overshoot its mark. ) - 02 Mar 2004 07:27 GMT > Michael West infrared: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The "forward slash" also sounds a bit strange, but I'm learning to > live with it. I'm not sure what you are referring to. The forward slash is obviously important since there is also a backslash that won't get you where you wanna go. The hypen for dash stuff isn't clear to me. SignatureMy contacts in the industry tell me that Mel is next going to make a movie about the Children of Israel's escape from Egypt which will focus almost entirely on the twelve hours that it took for the Egyptian army to drown in the Red Sea after Moses was done parting it. Other than a few flashbacks to toads falling from the sky and rivers turning crimson with blood, it will just be endless sequences of people trying to tread water and gasping for air. The Pope has already seen the shooting script and said, "It is as it was", so you can see it's going to be another good one for Gibson. Michael Nitabach wrote: >> "This is not a challenge; I want to be a better teacher." Bill Bonde wrote: > This is also an interesting question because I think it is the genesis > of a lot of what are considered run-on sentences. First of all, in > isolation, the semicolon looks funny. What do you mean by "in isolation"? > Why not make two sentences? But, > of course, the writer is really closely connecting the first with the > second, even making the first, and this is where the trouble comes up, > into some sort of null connected subordinate clause of the second. Your sentence would read better with a pair of dashes or parentheses setting off that parenthetical clause ("and this is where ..."). What on earth is a "null connected subordinate clause"? Do you simply mean that using a semicolon rather than a full stop calls attention to the logical connection between the first clause and the second? Yes, it does exactly that. Why is that a problem? SignatureMichael West >"just al" <al_hammel@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rS7_b.3515$gk6.2549 >@news02.roc.ny: > >> I teach my students this phrase, "When in doubt leave it out." > >Some teach their students this phrase: "When in doubt, leave it out." That is contradictory, innit? SignatureCharles Riggs My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately overshoot its mark. ) - 24 Feb 2004 00:36 GMT > >"just al" <al_hammel@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rS7_b.3515$gk6.2549 > >@news02.roc.ny: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is contradictory, innit? Yes. It would be nice to see longer sentences because clearly the above example is out of any context and doesn't have any other commas in it. More commas means a battle to decide which must stay and which can go. SignatureAs a long time supporter of progressive causes, I would like to ask all those who are concerned, how would you really get your ideas out there with just a Kerry candidacy? Kerry is one of those people who tries to be everything to everyone, promulgating to one group from his stage managed platform at once a complex melange of warped and entangled nonsense, and then gracelessly tossing out a thin, watery mish mash to the next. Minimalist or maximalist Kerry, neither shall do anything for real progressives this election. Go Nader in 2004! > I teach my students this phrase, "When in doubt leave it out." > > As far as the coordinating conjunction is concerned the rule is put a comma > before the "and" "but" "or" when the two sentences are closely related: > > I went to the store, and they were out of toilet paper. I don't see that the "closeness" of the "related"ness has anything to do with the comma. If the coordinating conjunction joins two independent clauses, the comma is very nearly mandatory: "I had doughnuts for breakfast, and my father wears silk underwear." You can argue that those two clauses shouldn't be in the same sentence, but here they are, so you need a comma before the conjunction. The only exception is when both clauses are extremely short: "I go to Harvard and he goes to Yale." Even that example is borderline. Now, if your point was supposed to be that two distantly related sentences should not be combined into one, I agree. But that's not what you said. I also agree with Mike Nitabach that there should be a comma between "doubt" and "leave." Even if you can't explain to your students why there's a comma there, I'd urge you to make sure the comma remains. If the rules you teach are themselves expressed in less than the best way, the students learn sloppiness, if not error. If they insist on an explanation for that comma, give them one. If they can't understand, promise to revisit later. Error is not the same as simplification. SignatureBob Lieblich Who both simplifies and errs |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.