Ahhhh, the poor, oft-abused comma... Of all the punctuation marks in the English language, it's the one that's most commonly misused. Why, I don't know. I think it might have something to do with the fact that for some reason many people are taught in elementary school that commas denote "pauses" in prose. Unfortunately, the whole "pause" thing is a big, fat lie, and I wish it was one that was no longer perpetuated, particularly by people who should know better! If nothing else, it's a lie that tends to make people use commas inappropriately. It leads people to stick commas into their prose in a rather haphazard fashion. Wherever they feel like the reader should pause for a moment in their reading, in goes a comma, and usually that comma is unnecessary and/or misused. Particularly, it makes people use commas when they aren't necessary and not use them when they are necessary.
No, commas don't denote "pauses" at all. Get that notion out of your little head right now! Like all other punctuation marks in the English language, commas serve a "structural support" function within a sentence and, also like all other punctuation marks, their overriding purpose is to make the meaning of the sentence clear. The function of a period, for instance, is to denote the end of a sentence, making it clear to the reader where one thought ends and the next begins. Question marks denote questions, making it clear to a reader that a sentence is, indeed, a question. (It isn't always crystal-clear, after all, yes? :) ) And commas... Well, other than their usages in dates (i.e. April 5, 1965) or in numerals (i.e. 1,548,743), commas have two functions and two functions only.
One of those functions is to separate the parts of a sentence in order to make its overall meaning clearer. The other is to enclose certain parts of sentences, also in order to make the overall meaning clearer. And that's it! Now, under both of those overriding usages are"sub-usages." So, the following is a list of when you should use a comma in your prose, as well as some musings about the ambiguities of and exceptions, if any, to those usages. If you're writing along, and you've just stuck a comma into a sentence, and you discover that it doesn't meet one of the following criteria... Well, then it probably doesn't belong in the sentence at all and probably should be removed. The official comma usage list is as follows:
- Use a comma to separate the independent clauses of a compound sentence when using a coordinating conjunction to join the clauses.
Some definitions of the above terms:
Compound sentence = A sentence made up of two or more independent clauses.
Independent clause = A group of words that is part of a larger sentence but that contains a subject and a verb of its own such that it could, if removed from the sentence, stand as a sentence on its own.
Coordinating conjunction = One of the following words: For, and, nor, but, or, yet, or so. (Note that the word "fanboys" can help you to remember them.)
Now, note the two provisos here: In order to appropriately use a comma in this instance, you must have two (or more) independent clauses, and you must have one of those seven coordinating conjunctions. If either of those two provisos is not satisfied then no comma is required when joining clauses together.
Example of a sentence requiring a comma: It was snowing outside, but it was warm inside.
("It was snowing outside" and "It was warm inside" are both independent clauses joined by "but," a coordinating conjunction. Therefore, that comma before the word "but" needs to be there.)
Example of a sentence not requiring such a comma: I picked up a pebble and tossed it into the pond.
(There is a coordinating conjunction, "and," here and one independent clause here, yes. However, the second part of the sentence, "tossed it into the pond," is not a clause at all because it contains no subject of its own. Therefore, you don't need a comma in the sentence.)
- Use a comma to separate introductory words, phrases, or dependent clauses from the rest of the sentence.
Example: As we drove by, the cathedral appeared bathed in heavenly light.
The reason to use a comma here is, as with the above, one of separation and therefore one of clarity. It doesn't denote a "pause," but rather it helps to clarify the meaning and structure of the sentence so that it is not misread. If you didn't put the comma in the above sentence, for instance, a reader could easily read the introductory words as, "As we drove by the cathedral..." rather than simply "As we drove by..." Such a misreading disrupts the "flow" of the sentence in the reader's mind.
- Use a comma to separate a series of words, phrases, or clauses.
For a rather long-winded example, to make the point: He would have to end the war, alleviate the plight of the poor, stop the contamination of the environment, and arrest the criminals.
If those commas weren't in there, the above sentence would be much more difficult to read, with little clue as to where one phrase ends and the next begins. It would be much like trying to read a run-on sentence, two sentences with no period between them to separate them from each other. So, again, this function of the comma is one of separation and clarity.
Do note that there is always a comma before the conjunction that appends the last item in such a series to the rest of the sentence. Many people will tend to leave that one out. Don't be one of them. It should be there.
Why should it be there, you ask? Again, it's for reasons of clarity. Some people will tell you that the final comma in a series isn't necessary at all. Some English teachers, even, will teach that it isn't necessary, that it's "optional" to use it...but I believe that it's not optional at all and that, indeed, it is absolutely essential in some cases. And, in the end, if you habitually use that final comma in your writing, then you're covering your bases. You will never have to worry about your meaning being unclear. Let me illustrate with an example why I so fervently believe that that final comma in a series is necessary. Say that you have the following sentence:
I appealed to the administrators, the deans and the chairpersons.
Written as such, without a comma after the word "deans," one could easily (and legitimately!) construe the phrase "the deans and the chairpersons" as an adjectival phrase that defines who, specifically, the administrators are. If you take it that way, then it appears that the subject of the sentence is only appealing to one group of people: the administrators, which, according to the adjectival phrase that follows the word "administrators," is a group made up of deans and chairpersons.
However, what I actually meant when I wrote that example sentence is that the subject of the sentence appealed to each of the three groups separately, to the administrators, to the deans, and to the chairpersons. You see the problem? It's a clarity issue, as I said. Is the subject appealing to three groups or just to one? The commas, or lack thereof, make the answer to that question clear to the reader. So, if you always use that comma before the final item in a series, there is no chance of this kind of ambiguity happening in your writing. You will never have to worry about your reader mistaking your meaning, which is pretty crucial in written communication. So, I don't see the final serial comma as optional at all. Neither, I should note, do the various linguistic societies and associations that govern what is kosher and what isn't when it comes to standard written American English.
Now, you may be asking, "Well, what if I did mean that the subject only appealed to the administrators?" Well, then I'd say that I, as the writer, worded the sentence quite badly, such that it became ambiguous, such that it legitimately could be interpreted in more ways than one. And that, as I said, is bad in written communication, whether it's "just" a story or not. If I meant that the subject only appealed to the administrators, a group made up of "deans and chairpersons," then I should have written something like:
I appealed to the administrators, to the deans and the chairpersons.
That additional little preposition and the comma separating the (what becomes a) nonrestrictive adjectival phrase, makes things pretty darn clear, just as written communication should be.
One note, however: It's been brought to my attention by a reliable source that in the UK, the use of final serial commas is not standard and, indeed, such commas are not used. I do not question at all the reliability of my source regarding this issue (Thanks, Velvet Glove! :) )...but I do very much question the wisdom of not using final serial commas, for the very reason I outlined above. However, if you happen to live in the UK... Well, then I suppose you're allowed to ignore this rule, and I won't be justified in bitching to you about your lack of compliance. :)
- Use a comma when writing dialogue and/or introspection to separate the actual quoted words from the accompanying descriptive words.
Example: Rattrap moaned, "We're all gonna die!" or "We're all gonna die," moaned Rattrap.
Yes, if your quoted dialogue is not a question that ends in a question mark or an exclamation that ends in an exclamation point, then it should alway end in a comma, unless you have no descriptive words after it, in which case it should end in a period. If you split up your quote as in the following, note where the commas go and what does and does not get capitalized:
"We are," Rattrap announced, "all going to die."
- Use a comma before the adverb "too" when you use it to mean "also."
It's never been adequately explained to me why this particular adverb used in this manner is always set off with a comma, but it is!
Example: John went, too.
- Use a comma to enclose short interjections unnecessary to the structure/meaning of the sentence in order to set them off from the rest of the sentence.
Example: "You, my friend, are an idiot." Or, "This, of course, is wrong." Or, "Ultra Magnus, naturally, can't deal with that now."
Interjections are exactly that: Words and short phrases that are interjected into a sentence but that aren't necessary to its overall structure and that serve no descriptive function within the sentence. They often serve as intensifiers, and they are always set off from the rest of the sentence with enclosing commas. As such, this usage seems similar to but actually is not at all the same as the last usage, as follows...
- Use a comma to enclose nonrestrictive adjective clauses in a sentence.
Say what, you ask? Well, a "nonrestrictive adjective clause" is one that gives further information about the noun that it's modifying but that is not necessary to maintain the overall structure and meaning of the sentence. In other words, you can take it out completely, and your sentence is still a sentence and its meaning is still clear.
Example: My oldest brother, who is a doctor, was injured in an accident last week.
The clause "who is a doctor" is adjectival in that it describes the noun "brother." However, if you remove the clause from the sentence you still have a complete, coherent sentence. Therefore the clause in question is nonrestrictive and needs to be enclosed at both ends with commas.
On the other hand, if your adjective clause is restrictive — meaning, necessary to the structure and clear meaning of the sentence — then no commas are necessary.
Example: The poem is about a girl who has been living in Vietnam and is reunited with her family.
If you take out the adjective clause "who has been living in Vietnam" what you have left is not a complete, coherent sentence. Therefore that clause in question is restrictive and no enclosing commas are necessary.
Alas, this final function of the comma is probably the most ambiguous. And it doesn't help that, in some cases, whether or not a clause is restrictive is something that is known only to the writer who is creating the sentence, and therefore whether or not the clause in question should be comma-enclosed is likewise something known only to the writer. Again, I shall illustrate with some examples.
Take, for example, the sentence I used above, "My oldest brother, who is a doctor, was injured in an accident last week." Suppose that I as the writer chose to leave out the word "oldest." Suppose further that it's established in the story that the character who is speaking this line has four brothers. In that case, the clause "who is a doctor" could well be considered restrictive as it clarifies which brother was injured and is therefore essential to the overall meaning of the sentence. If so, then it would be acceptable not to enclose the clause in question with commas. As I said, the restrictive/nonrestrictive issue is not simply one of structure, but also one of clarity-of-meaning. And I'm afraid it gets still more complicated, too. :)
Say, for instance, that I've written the following sentence:
The shopkeeper caters only to American tourists who have enough money to buy what they want and to aristocratic families.
Tell me, is the clause "who have enough money to buy what they want" restrictive or nonrestrictive? The correct answer is that, simply because there are no commas enclosing it, it's restrictive...but the problem is that it could easily be either restrictive or nonrestrictive. Further, only the writer of the sentence, who knows what the meaning of the sentence is supposed to be, will know for sure whether or not the clause is restrictive.
If, for instance, the writer meant that the shopkeeper caters to all American tourists indiscriminately — and therefore the indicated clause is an aside explaining why he does so, which is not really necessary to understanding the meaning of the sentence — then the phrase in question is nonrestrictive and should be enclosed with commas.
If, however, the writer meant that the shopkeeper caters only to those American tourists who have enough money to buy want they want (as opposed to, say, poor American tourists ), then the clause in question is, indeed, restrictive because it's crucial to the overall meaning of the sentence, and it therefore should not be enclosed in commas.
As written, without commas denoting the clause in question as nonrestrictive, the latter interpretation is the correct meaning of the example sentence. If, however, the writer meant the sentence to mean that the shopkeeper caters to all American tourists, then the sentence is punctuated incorrectly and, in this case, that seemingly small mistake has resulted in a sentence that means something different than the writer intended. This is A Bad Thing! This is why it's crucial to know the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses and to punctuate them correctly, in accordance with the meaning that you as the writer wish to convey. The problem is that, as I said, whether or not a clause is restrictive is often something that only the writer knows. So it is therefore the writer's responsibility to know how to punctuate restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses correctly, so that he or she conveys the exact meaning that he or she intends to convey.
And those, my friends, are the only instances in which you should be using a comma in your prose. Keep this list in mind the next time you're writing something and you find yourself tossing commas into your sentences willy-nilly. Don't do that! You should know why you're using every single comma you inject into your prose! And if it doesn't fit one of the above criteria...don't use one! More than enough people already abuse the poor, innocent comma; you do not need to add yourself to that stack.
OK, rant done...until next time, that is, when I will perhaps address the long-suffering semicolon. :)
|