0
Snarf Posted 13 years ago
Grammar

A confusing "but" comma

He starts grabbing him by the neck with his powerful jaws, but not viciously enough to kill him, for that is not his intention.

Should there be a comma before "but"? I'm trying to stay away from putting commas before "but" when not starting off an independent clause, and I'm not sure whether "but" is starting one off there or not, plus there are always exceptions to the rule, anyway. I just want to know what's best, a pause there or not, if not, I'll omit the comma.

This one as well:

He is speechless, but only momentarily.

Thanks.
  

Top answer

In both of those cases, I would definitely use a comma before the but . It does not sound natural without a pause.

  • In both of those cases, I would definitely use a comma before the but .
  • It does not sound natural without a pause.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0
In both of those cases, I would definitely use a comma before the but. It does not sound natural without a pause.
0
KrisBlueNZIn both of those cases, I would definitely use a comma before the but. It does not sound natural without a pause.
Okay, thank you very much for answering. Do you consider them to be examples of exceptions to the rule, then?
0
I don't think there is a rule that says you should try to avoid putting a comma before but.
There are some cases where a comma is not needed, and may be better omitted. I think this occurs when the whole sentence, especially the part after but, is short and simple. Here's a good example:

Grammar is boringbut necessary.

That could be written, and spoken, w
0
KrisBlueNZI don't think there is a rule that says you should try to avoid putting a comma before but.
No, the rule is that you put it if but is starting off an independent clause.
KrisBlueNZIf you can give me a web address that states the rule you're talking about, I may be able to say more about it
Here's a couple:
0
OK, right.

The comma is sometimes natural even when the second part of the sentence is not an independent clause.

In other words, you can always use the comma, whether or not the second part of the sentence is independent, and often, when it's not independent, it's better to omit the comma.

There are even cases when the second clause is independent but the
0
The "rule" that a comma should be used before but only when it introduces an independent clause is an oversimplification. I agree that in short, simple sentences that it’s usually unnecessary to use a comma. I have yet to come across an unassailable rule for this that can be applied to all situations.

By the way, I would take anything Grammar Monster says with a grain of salt. In y
0
What about this?

He does not answer but continues to weep, his face as red as a tomato, and quickly turning pale.

Is it fine like that with no comma before "but" and one before "and"?

Thanks.
0
That's a good example. I would drop the comma before and. This judgement is based on how I would say the sentence and it agrees with the general rule.

Related Questions