Grammar question pertaining to ACT/SAT

[snowbeltmom]

I have been reading through the prep guide "Barron's ACT 36" that I checked out of the library yesterday.

 

The following example is given as a correct use of the comma:

"Over the years, our band has gotten better."

 

I was taught (and have taught my kids) that if a sentence begins with a prepositional phrase three words or less in length, you do not set it off with a comma.

 

Is this rule no longer the case? Or perhaps a better a question would be, "Does the ACT and SAT always require a comma for an introductory clause regardless of length?"

[Ellie]

I've never heard that rule.

 

ABeka's Handbook of Grammar and Punctuation makes these two notes:

 

 

• Note 1: Sometimes good writers will omit the comma after very short phrases or clauses if there is no possibility of misreading, but in this book you should follow [the rule that says to use a comma].
  
• Note 2: Do not use a comma after an introductory adverb phrase that comes immediately before the word it modifies. "In my Father's house are many mansions."
  

My Rod and Staff English Handbook says to use a comma, with no exceptions.

 

So it would seem to me that the rule is to use that comma.

[snowbeltmom]

My Rod and Staff English Handbook says to use a comma, with no exceptions.

 

So it would seem to me that the rule is to use that comma.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

We are using Michael Clay Thompson's grammar book. The rule in this book is similar to what I was taught back in the dark ages: "We generally do not put a comma after a single short introductory prepositional phrase, but we do put a comma after a long introductory prepositional phrase or after multiple introductory prepositional phrases."

 

Yikes. I wonder what other grammar rules I am teaching my kids that will get marked wrong on the ACT/SAT. :confused:

 

I guess I better continue reading this prep book.:glare:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I have been reading through the prep guide "Barron's ACT 36" that I checked out of the library yesterday.

 

The following example is given as a correct use of the comma:

"Over the years, our band has gotten better."

 

I was taught (and have taught my kids) that if a sentence begins with a prepositional phrase three words or less in length, you do not set it off with a comma.

 

Is this rule no longer the case? Or perhaps a better a question would be, "Does the ACT and SAT always require a comma for an introductory clause regardless of length?"

 

I was taught that rule to (in high school in the 1980'). However, the general trend seems to be to minimize the use of commas. I'd even go so far as to say that punctuation is fading as a discipline.

 

I would look at a current edition of A Manual for Style by Turabian or the MLA Handbook to see current guidelines. These books seem to be the most frequently used style guides for colleges.

[snowbeltmom]

I was taught that rule to (in high school in the 1980'). However, the general trend seems to be to minimize the use of commas. I'd even go so far as to say that punctuation is fading as a discipline.

 

I agree, but it looks like for the ACT at least, the comma is used more frequently. I better also check out a SAT prep book to see if I can determine whether it has the same rule as the ACT test.

[Ellie]

Thanks for your reply.

 

We are using Michael Clay Thompson's grammar book. The rule in this book is similar to what I was taught back in the dark ages: "We generally do not put a comma after a single short introductory prepositional phrase, but we do put a comma after a long introductory prepositional phrase or after multiple introductory prepositional phrases."

 

Yikes. I wonder what other grammar rules I am teaching my kids that will get marked wrong on the ACT/SAT. :confused:

 

I guess I better continue reading this prep book.:glare:

Well, I graduated from high school in 1969, so I'm thinking that's darker ages than you, lol. I had grammar my senior year of high school. I also had two years of shorthand, where in the second year we also worked on grammar and punctuation. I've done ABeka, R&S, and BJUP English, plus miscellaneous grammar resources, since 1982 with homeschooling my own dc and teaching in a little Christian school. And I've never seen that rule before.

 

I just checked Strunk & White, and my "Katharine Gibbs Handbook of Business English." No mention in them, either, about not using a comma if an introductory clause is short.

[snowbeltmom]

I just looked through The New Oxford Guide to Writing. Three sentences on the first page I looked at (p 286 in case anyone has the book and is interested) contradict the grammar rules I have been teaching my kids:

 

1. "...when coordinated clauses are short, obviously related, and contain no internal commas, the comma between them may be omitted." Example provided written by Ernest Hemingway "They tried to hold him up against the wall but he sat down in a puddle of water." I would have insisted on a comma after the word wall.

 

2. "A comma link is a comma used between independent clauses that are paratactic - that is, not joined by coordinating conjunctions but simply run together....Under certain circumstances, a comma may be used between paratactic clauses. The book then goes on to list two examples:

"A memoir is history, it is based on evidence."

"The crisis was past, the prospects were favorable." I would have insisted on a semicolon instead of a comma.

 

I guess I will be reviewing the English/Writing sections on the ACT/SAT to make sure I am teaching my kids the correct grammar rules for these tests. I just hope that they both follow the same rules.

[Julie in MN]

Just chiming in to your "poll." I vote on having often seen the "short" rule, such as at Purdue's OWL site:

 

 

 

Do not use a comma in the following cases:

 

After a brief prepositional phrase. (Is it a single phrase of fewer than five words?)

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/03/

 

 

 

And ugh to the The New Oxford Guide to Writing. :svengo:

 

Julie