Someone has estimated that the comma may be used as much as all other forms of punctuation combined. Far too many times a better word is misused.
Fear of the unknown (i.e., when and when not to use it) leads many to insert the comma injudiciously – – and it seems that too many writers (especially lawyers!) opt to use it whenever there is a doubt. A better rule (though it too has its risks) might be: when in doubt, leave it out!
The comma exists to create a mental pause, and there are times when the rules of grammar mandate its use; but there are times when the improper insertion can actually change the meaning of a sentence. Legal rulings involving contracts have often turned on the placement of a comma.
Last time we spoke of restrictive and non-restrictive words, phrases, and clauses; and we are going to assume that all of that is still fresh in the memory. As a general rule in a sentence a restrictive thought (one that is vital to the meaning of the sentence) should not be set off by commas, but one that is non-restrictive should have a comma at the beginning and end. If I have several brothers and I say: “My brother Fred is here”, “Fred” is essential, and we use no commas; if Fred is my only brother, I say, “My brother, Fred, is here” and commas are used.
To illustrate how a meaning can shift significantly, consider the following: “The attendant, who was wearing a red jacket, filled my gas tank.” Since the clause involving the jacket is set off by commas, it is non-restrictive and is therefore not vital to the meaning of the sentence. The fact that he was wearing a red jacket is incidental, and there might be several others who had the same jackets.
The alternative is: “The attendant who was wearing a red jacket filled my gas tank.” Now the clause is essential (restrictive), and we are identifying that attendant (among all the attendants) who filled the tank. Suppose there is some kind of an emergency, the police are summoned, and you (temporarily unable to speak) are called upon to identify the person who serviced your car at the gas station; several attendants (none wearing red but our guy) are standing together, and by using this grammatical tool, you make it amply clear who it is.
We have barely scratched the (comma) surface; there are many other rules to consider, and we shall, down the road. For now, apply this simple rule: If a word (or phrase or clause) is essential to the meaning of a sentence, no commas; if the word merely embellishes, commas before and after.
Throughout this article I have used several commas. Have I been judicious?
Passing paradox: Have you ever wondered why previews of coming attractions shown before a feature film are called “trailers” in Hollywood?
Fear of the unknown (i.e., when and when not to use it) leads many to insert the comma injudiciously – – and it seems that too many writers (especially lawyers!) opt to use it whenever there is a doubt. A better rule (though it too has its risks) might be: when in doubt, leave it out!
The comma exists to create a mental pause, and there are times when the rules of grammar mandate its use; but there are times when the improper insertion can actually change the meaning of a sentence. Legal rulings involving contracts have often turned on the placement of a comma.
Last time we spoke of restrictive and non-restrictive words, phrases, and clauses; and we are going to assume that all of that is still fresh in the memory. As a general rule in a sentence a restrictive thought (one that is vital to the meaning of the sentence) should not be set off by commas, but one that is non-restrictive should have a comma at the beginning and end. If I have several brothers and I say: “My brother Fred is here”, “Fred” is essential, and we use no commas; if Fred is my only brother, I say, “My brother, Fred, is here” and commas are used.
To illustrate how a meaning can shift significantly, consider the following: “The attendant, who was wearing a red jacket, filled my gas tank.” Since the clause involving the jacket is set off by commas, it is non-restrictive and is therefore not vital to the meaning of the sentence. The fact that he was wearing a red jacket is incidental, and there might be several others who had the same jackets.
The alternative is: “The attendant who was wearing a red jacket filled my gas tank.” Now the clause is essential (restrictive), and we are identifying that attendant (among all the attendants) who filled the tank. Suppose there is some kind of an emergency, the police are summoned, and you (temporarily unable to speak) are called upon to identify the person who serviced your car at the gas station; several attendants (none wearing red but our guy) are standing together, and by using this grammatical tool, you make it amply clear who it is.
We have barely scratched the (comma) surface; there are many other rules to consider, and we shall, down the road. For now, apply this simple rule: If a word (or phrase or clause) is essential to the meaning of a sentence, no commas; if the word merely embellishes, commas before and after.
Throughout this article I have used several commas. Have I been judicious?
Passing paradox: Have you ever wondered why previews of coming attractions shown before a feature film are called “trailers” in Hollywood?
– Ken Butera