Calling some grammarians about commas

[Janie]

I thought I had a pretty good understanding about commas, but the examples I'm going to give now are throwing me for a loop. I think the commas used are unnecessary (I've boldfaced them), yet I've had confidence in the source of the writing.

 

So, please tell me why these are correct.

 

Thanks!

 

 

What was Brazil

,

before it was a country?

 

 

 

How did Pedro I act

,

when riots broke out?

Edited December 27, 2008 by Janie
typo

[Michelle in MO]

I thought I had a pretty good understanding about commas, but the examples I'm going to give now are throwing me for a loop. I think the commas used are unnecessary (I've boldfaced them), yet I've had confidence the source of the writing.

 

So, please tell me why these are correct.

 

Thanks!

 

 

What was Brazil

,

before it was a country?

 

 

 

How did Pedro I act

,

when riots broke out?

 

 

"before it was a country?" and "when riots broke out?" may be dependent clauses, in that they cannot stand alone as a separate sentence.

 

In the first sentence the use of a comma might be possible but not absolutely necessary, depending upon the sense or tone. For instance, if I emphasize the first sentence this way: "What was Brazil, (a pause in the speaker's voice, therefore a comma) before it was a country?" And, I suppose that the second sentence could also be spoken with a certain emphasis that might dictate the usage of a comma (or pause) in the speaker's voice: "How did Pedro I act, (a pause for emphasis again) when the riots broke out?"

 

I found it interesting in Andrew Pudewa's Institute of Excellence in Writing that he noted that Canadian usage of commas is very different than American usage. In other words, Canadians use far fewer commas than Americans do.

 

Honestly, I don't think a comma is necessary in either sentence at all, but it may be that the writer had a certain emphasis in mind.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Michelle in MO

[LizzyBee]

Neither comma is necessary imo.

[MotherLode]

Janie, older forms of English style would insist upon the commas. Newer styles do not.

 

What is the age of the source?

 

Why would it be correct? Because they placed a pause for clarity.

 

ML

Edited December 28, 2008 by MotherLode
correcting person addressed

[Michelle in MO]

Michelle, older forms of English style would insist upon the commas. Newer styles do not.

 

What is the age of the source?

 

Why would it be correct? Because they placed a pause for clarity.

 

ML

 

The age of the source would be Andrew Pudewa's Institute for Excellence in Writing, specifically his DVD series on Teaching Writing: Structure and Style. You could use the link provided to look up the age of this series.

 

Specifically, it was the Canadian professor whom Andrew Pudewa frequently quotes who stated that American comma usage is quite different from Canadian usage. Since this professor was quite aged already at the time of the filming of this DVD series, I would imagine also that Canadian usage has been like this for some time.

 

I honestly don't see what difference the age of the source would be. After all, in early Greek and Latin manuscripts no punctuation was used whatsoever (here's a Wiki source which explains some of that); punctuation was a stylistic development which took place over centuries and began to be inserted by writers in order to explain shorter pauses (commas and semicolons) as opposed to longer pauses (i.e., colons and periods). Early Greek and Latin orators were taught, as part of their rhetorical training, when to pause for emphasis or clarity, but this was all done orally. Punctuation was inserted only later when more of the general public became literate and reading was no longer done only aloud, but also quietly and privately. This is also true in methods of Biblical translation; translators understand that punctuation was not accepted practice in the earliest Greek manuscripts, so they insert commas and periods where they deem necessary.

 

No, I don't necessarily rely on the age of the source to provide clarity and instruction in all things, including currently acceptable grammatical usage. My more recent MLA Handbook has changed its notation regarding footnotes, endnotes, and bibliography pages from my older version that I used in college in the early 1980s, yet in order to turn in a properly cited paper I need to follow the modern format, which includes a "Works Cited" page rather than the previously acceptable "Bibliography" page which was in use back in the olden days, in the '70s and '80s, when all information was cited from books and periodicals rather than internet sources.

 

Generally, I'm of the opinion that in many matters that "older is better". However, I think that most would agree that in today's usage the comma would be unnecessary. Certainly it's a matter of opinion and interpretation, which I stated in my original post: one could insert the comma, depending upon emphasis of certain words, or one could remove the comma, and the meaning would still be clear. I have no problems reading or understanding the sentence either way.

 

Bottom line is that I think the placement of commas in this sentence would be a matter of individual interpretation, but would not be currently used by most people. I think it depends on what the writer of the sentence was trying to say. There is leeway here for individual interpretation, though! ;)

Edited December 27, 2008 by Michelle in MO
additional thoughts

[Laura K (NC)]

I don't agree with all the punctuation examples in Rod & Staff, either. (I think the comma in that sentence is superfluous, too!) I tend to add too many commas, sprinkling them in whenever I feel a natural pause comes into a sentence. I think it's more an artistic thing, like a phrase of music, than a technical thing, and so I'm skeptical when commas are graded too rigidly.

[Storm Bay]

As a dual citizen who has been Canadian for a lifetime and American for far less, I think that both of those commas in your examples are totally unnecessary:001_smile:. I prefer Canadian punctuation because it's what I learned first and it's "clean." Sometimes, I do American puncutation now, though, as in where to put punctuation when using parentheses. My dc punctuate American, and I don't mark it wrong because they're using an American text and we live in the States.

 

If, however, it were a speaker who paused, I would do the standard writing way of dividing the pause like this

 

"What was Brazil

," he said,

"before it was a country?"

But I probably wouldn't put the pause there, anyway.

[MotherLode]

Sorry Michelle, I meant to address my post to Janie!

 

The last style book I bought was about 11 years ago while working as an editor, and it reflected the changes computers have brought over typewriters...font characteristics to show quoted materials instead of underlining, proportional spacing vs monotype facing of the font, etc. A lot of things are "cleaner," perhaps we're going Canadian? LOL

 

Laura, is the sample from Rod & Staff? I use R&S and haven't found them to be "comma happy." It all seems pretty standard grammar training.

 

You can definitely tell from R&S materials that they are training up their children to write and edit materials for production, be it a book, a sermon (Mennonite pastors are not seminary-trained but raised up from within a congregation), the missions field, or for curricula. Nearly all of their young women, and some of their men spend one or more years before marriage teaching in their mixed-grade classrooms). That's why their English is so strong - they have their goal in mind. And that is why Mennonite printing houses tend to have so much material!

[Storm Bay]

" perhaps we're going Canadian? LOL

 

:lol::lol::lol: Canadians tend to worry that they're becoming too Americanized, and some of us get quite upset with how Canadian newspapers adopt American spelling to save money...

 

Laura, is the sample from Rod & Staff? I use R&S and haven't found them to be "comma happy." It all seems pretty standard grammar training.

 

I agree, for an American text, it's not heavy on commas. More commas than I'd use, but not bad at all. We use it, and my dds punctuate that way.

[MotherLode]

In the bigger subject of "one world government" I wonder how commas (and spellings) will fair!

 

What was that song years ago when economical foreign cars broke our shores...I'm turning Japanese, I really think so! Look how the world has changed since then! I live among so many cultures, Asian and middle eastern primarily, and discovering their nuances is quite fun!

[Storm Bay]

In the bigger subject of "one world government" I wonder how commas (and spellings) will fair!

 

What was that song years ago when economical foreign cars broke our shores...I'm turning Japanese, I really think so! Look how the world has changed since then! I live among so many cultures, Asian and middle eastern primarily, and discovering their nuances is quite fun!

 

Interesting. Canadians use fewer commas than Americans, and I think fewer than those in the UK. And we have for decades--I graduated from high school in the late 1970s, and we already used commas less than here back then.

[Janie]

Thanks for your comments. I agree that those commas are unnecessary.

I was really surprised to find the examples I used (and there are more like these) in review questions for a history book widely used by those here. I was genuinely surprised to find such obvious errors.

 

One thing I've learned about commas is that commas are never used to indicate a pause in reading (at least I've never seen a rule stating such) even though commas are used to make understanding clear.

 

Thanks again!

[Michelle in MO]

One thing I've learned about commas is that commas are never used to indicate a pause in reading (at least I've never seen a rule stating such) even though commas are used to make understanding clear.

 

Commas are indeed used today to make the meaning of a sentence clear. Punctuation did originate because writers had to find a way to indicate pauses, so that a text could be properly read, either silently or aloud, and I think most people pause very briefly for commas and just a tad longer for periods, etc. But there is no rule stating such today, and I don't think the history of punctuation is explained in grammar books. It's explained today more in terms of clarity. For example, here's a common phrase that's used to explain the necessity of punctuating sentences properly: "eats shoots and leaves" or "eats, shoots, and leaves". In fact, I think that's the title of a book that VP sells! :)

 

It does seem like the two sentences that you provided don't really need commas. It sounds a little more "stiff" or "stilted" with the commas included.

[Storm Bay]

Commas are indeed used today to make the meaning of a sentence clear. Punctuation did originate because writers had to find a way to indicate pauses, so that a text could be properly read, either silently or aloud, and I think most people pause very briefly for commas and just a tad longer for periods, etc. But there is no rule stating such today, and I don't think the history of punctuation is explained in grammar books. It's explained today more in terms of clarity. For example, here's a common phrase that's used to explain the necessity of punctuating sentences properly: "eats shoots and leaves" or "eats, shoots, and leaves". In fact, I think that's the title of a book that VP sells! :)

 

It does seem like the two sentences that you provided don't really need commas. It sounds a little more "stiff" or "stilted" with the commas included.

 

The title is Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Only one comma because it's from the UK, not the States ;). Seriously, I have the book. It's an American thing to do that extra comma before the "and." Drew (aka Plaid Dad) used this example to defend the American way for clarity, "my parents, God and Ayn Rand" which I had a smile over, but once that thread was done I realized that in Canada we'd simply change the word order to avoid that confusion such as God, my parents and Ayn Rand." Plaid Dad is one of my favourite reads here, but I do stick with the Canadian comma rules;)

[Michelle in MO]

The title is Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Only one comma because it's from the UK, not the States ;). Seriously, I have the book. It's an American thing to do that extra comma before the "and." Drew (aka Plaid Dad) used this example to defend the American way for clarity, "my parents, God and Ayn Rand" which I had a smile over, but once that thread was done I realized that in Canada we'd simply change the word order to avoid that confusion such as God, my parents and Ayn Rand." Plaid Dad is one of my favourite reads here, but I do stick with the Canadian comma rules;)

 

one comma makes sense after the word "Eats", because in a sentence with the two remaining items one would simply say, "Shoots and Leaves"---no comma necessary. I think this practice was becoming more common when I was in college, and obviously I've had a hard time adapting!

 

From now on I will be more aware of my Americanized over-usage of commas! :)