| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Taiwantroll
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: Use of commas |
 |
|
I was always taught that using commas for natural pauses in speech, to separate different trains of thought in a sentence, and before 'and', were not grammatically incorrect.
I cannot find anything to substantiate that though.
Am I wrong? Can anyone help?
Taiwantroll |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No one can help. No two people can agree on exact rules for commas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BS.Dos.
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As above , but they should be placed correctly. There are a couple of posters on daves who , for some reason , seem to think that you need to insert a space before the comma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hemingway and Gertrude Stein are supposed to have had an extended debate about a particular comma at some point. After several days of debate she agreed with him and took the comma out. Later she reconsidered and put it back in.
My freshman comp teacher said:
When in doubt
Leave it out.
I tend to err in the other direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say that there are hard rules to follow when using defining or non-defining relative clauses.
After that, I use them wherever and whenever the hell I want.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crash bang
Joined: 11 Jul 2007
Location: gwangju
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| what, are we, ta,lking about,? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crash bang wrote: |
| what, are we, ta,lking about,? |
He's dead Jim! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I'm posting on a forum or something I usually just throw them in where I would pause naturally. If I'm writing for something more formal I'll offset all the proper clauses with them and such.
To answer the OP, they could be grammatically incorrect in some of those instances. If you really want to know, this covers all the basics:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
To be frank, I don't care much for this site's introduction of the term "little conjunction".
My grammar at this point is firmly rooted in the Bettie Azar version of things:
Use a coordinating conjunction with a comma between two independent clauses:
I like this, and I like that.
Use a comma when a subordinating conjunction is at the start of a sentence:
Because I like this, I don't like that.
But no comma if the subordinating conjunction comes later in the sentence:
I like this because I like that.
Azar's major counterpart is more vague. Murphy's Grammar In Use says to use a comma if the thought is long and not to if it's short.
Blech.
On the OP's exact grammar point, we're talking about a situation where there are no conjunctions.
Something like this:
It was a beautiful day, the clouds were all fluffy.
From a strict grammarian viewpoint, I'd say that a semicolon should be used in such a case. Why? Because it's two independent clauses without a conjunction linked by the ideas being expressed.
On the other hand, when you start looking at the style used by professional journalists and authors, the comma rules go out the window and it's pretty loosey goosey.
In fact, let's backtrack to this statement:
| Quote: |
| Why? Because it's two independent clauses without a conjunction linked by the ideas being expressed. |
One clause with a subordinating conjunction alone=bad grammar. But it's perfectly acceptable in normal native-speaker discourse.
Oops! I did it again:
But it's perfectly acceptable in normal native-speaker discourse.
Starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction is bad grammar, but we see it all the time.
What does it all mean? The Greeks came up with the concept of grammar way back when. They did so by looking at language and noting the structure in it. That's descriptive. Subsequently, grammar became the rules that you must observe previously accepted structures. That's prescriptive.
Language is constantly in flux, so yesterday's grammar isn't necessarily today's grammar. Basically, if certain stylistic turns become common usage, then the grammar needs changing as opposed to insisting on one strict form of usage.
That all said, this leads us back to students. My general experience is that they like hard and fast rules, and I concur. I think you should have to learn the rules before you start to break them. Bartleby.com and Strunk and White's Elements of Style address the minutiae of native-level grammar usage.
As such (and again getting back to the OP), I think that, if they have two ideas, then they should just use a good old-fashioned period (full stop) unless you're teaching some uber-high level smarty pantses. If that's the case, then teach them the semicolon. Leave the comma as a turn of thought to the pros. Why? It's vague, confusing, and there are almost certainly other areas of their grammar that they cannot use properly that they should be focusing on more than this particular point.
Generally speaking, my students either don't use commas at all or string them into paragraph-long sentences as substitutes for periods/full stops.
Azar clearly delineates proper usage that will get them through an undergraduate degree in a Western university.
And my students actually love Azar. Some characterize it as a reference book, but it is the most communicative grammar text that I know.
But it's not inductive. The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book is the only inductive grammar text I know of, but it's out of print.
My pet peeve is ESL reading books that don't follow the strict version of grammar previously set forth.
Anyway, I'm rambling but wanted to throw that all out in the hopes that others will recommend decent grammar books that I don't know about, and I hope I answered the question being asked as best I could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
