Commas, take II

Subject: Commas, take II
From: "Geoff Hart (by way of \"Eric J. Ray\" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)" <ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:09:48 -0700

Leonard Porrello questioned my statement on commas: <<All of the
grammar texts that I have ever seen state the comma is necessary--as
a rule except when the two clauses are very simple--to separate two
independent clauses joined by a conjunction, so I wonder why you say
that using the comma is just a mater of style.>>

Strictly speaking, this matter is a bit more complicated than either
of us suggested in our messages. Here's a quick survey: For short
clauses, comma (generally) unnecessary. For compound predicates,
comma unnecessary. For restrictive clauses, comma unnecessary; for
nonrestrictive clauses, comma necessary. References: Chicago Manual
of Style, Strunk and White (for which I'm working from memory), and
probably most others if you dig a bit.
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"By God, for a moment there it all made sense!"--Gahan Wilson

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Use of voice and commas in procedures
Next by Author: Terseness a no-no?
Previous by Thread: Re: Referring to HTML tags in documentation
Next by Thread: job in North Carolina

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads