Comma directly before a left parenthesis?

Question

Given the decision to put commas around 'Inc.', which of these is correct?

Sueden Centimeter, Inc. (USA), joins our product-lines

Sueden Centimeter, Inc., (USA) joins our product-lines

Is one more logical than the other? Is it a matter of convention? How about:

N-SG Co., Ltd. ('N-SG'), owns the copyright
N-SG Co., Ltd., ('N-SG') owns the copyright
Are there (other) cases where a comma could come directly before a left parenthesis?

Gerald Smyth

Usenet · Accepted Answer

The inimitable (Email Removed) (Gerald Smyth) stated one day
[nq:1]Given the decision to put commas around 'Inc.', which of these is correct? Sueden Centimeter, Inc. (USA), joins our product-lines[/nq]
The first is the one I would use.
[nq:1]Sueden Centimeter, Inc., (USA) joins our product-lines Is one more logical than the other? Is it a matter of convention? How about: N-SG Co., Ltd. ('N-SG'), owns the copyright[/nq]
The first is the one I would use.
[nq:1]N-SG Co., Ltd., ('N-SG') owns the copyright Are there (other) cases where a comma could come directly before a left parenthesis?[/nq]
The problem with putting the comma before the left parenthesis is that it place the parenthetical expression in the following phrase or clause, but it obviously belongs in the preceding one. This seems like a matter of both convention and logic; ie, the convention exists because it is logical.

Usenet · Answer

While it was 1/10/03 4:47 am throughout the UK, CyberCypher sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
[nq:2]Given the decision to put commas around 'Inc.', which of these is correct? Sueden Centimeter, Inc. (USA), joins our product-lines[/nq]
[nq:1]The first is the one I would use.[/nq]
Why use any comma at all? I wouldn't.
Stewart.

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Given the decision to put commas around 'Inc.', which of these is correct? Sueden Centimeter, Inc. (USA), joins our product-lines ... Co., Ltd., ('N-SG') owns the copyright Are there (other) cases where a comma could come directly before a left parenthesis?[/nq]
Actually, I wouldn't put the second comma into any of these sentences. If it were
"Sueden Centimeter, Inc., USA, joins our product-lines" then the commas around USA would function to set it off parenthetically, which, oddly enough, the parentheses are already doing in the example. If the actual name of the organization is "Sueden Centimeter, Inc., (USA)", then leave the comma where it is, of course.

rzed

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable Stewart Gordon stated one day
[nq:1]While it was 1/10/03 4:47 am throughout the UK, CyberCypher sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:[/nq]
[nq:1] Why use any comma at all? I wouldn't.[/nq]
You don't have to, obviously. You're still walking the streets and surfing the Net despite violating this punctuational convention. Yours is a "Good enough for government work" mindset, and there's nothing that can be done about that. While you're at it, you might as well drop the apostrophe in possessive /'s/ (as in George's) because it's undrstandable in context that the "Georges" in "This is Georges car" is supposed to be a possessive. And as long as there are periods at the end of your sentences, you don't need capital letters at the beginning. Or commas. or semi-colons. Or colons. Or dashes. Etc.
*** oandyouwillprobablybeunderstoodbythoseofuswhoknowthelanguagewellenoug htoknowhowtodechipercraplikethis

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable "rzed" (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:2]Given the decision to put commas around 'Inc.', which of ... where a comma could come directly before a left parenthesis?[/nq]
[nq:1]Actually, I wouldn't put the second comma into any of these sentences. If it were "Sueden Centimeter, Inc., USA, joins ... the actual name of the organization is "Sueden Centimeter, Inc., (USA)", then leave the comma where it is, of course.[/nq]
soyouareaskingapairofparenthesestodothejobofacommawellthatiscertainly goodenoughforgovernmentworkandihavetohandittoyouforcomingupwiththatno velidea

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Actually, I wouldn't put the second comma into any of ... (USA)", then leave the comma where it is, of course.[/nq]
soyouareaskingapairofparenthesestodothejobofacommawellthatiscertainly
goodenoughforgovernmentworkandihavetohandittoyouforcomingupwiththatno
[nq:1]velidea[/nq]
I'm not sure what your highly-compressed objection is, exactly. I'm asking parentheses to set items off parenthetically, yes. Maybe it's just me, but I think there is a connection between parentheses (the symbols) and parentheses (the grammatical construction).

My objection to the comma has nothing much to do with the parenthesized portion of the phrase, though. Would you write "Ford Motor Company, joins our product-lines"? I would suppose not. How does the presence of a parenthesized symbol change that?

rzed

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable "rzed" (Email Removed) stated one day

You don't see any need for a comma after the "(USA)"? "Sueden Centimeter, Inc., (USA)" has an unnecessary comma before the parenthesis. Only if there are no parentheses, as in "Sueden Centimeter, Inc., USA", would there be a need for a comma directly after "Inc." On the other hand, it really isn't necessary to have any commas at all. "Sueden Centimeter Inc. USA" would be perfectly acceptable, IMHO. It's not a question of having to have or not having to have a comma anywhere as much as it is that if you put one in, you probably need another to set off what comes after the first comma.I know that sentence mechanics are not highly prized these days (neither type). But that's okay. You wouldn't believe the incredulity of educated Asians, most of whom spend their high school and college years studying all the fine points of English grammar (usually to no good effect, it's true, so I object to it as much as they do, only for different reasons), sitting in EFL classes taught by native speakers who not only do not know the grammar of their own native language but cannot even use it properly.

I don't think it's necessary for run-of-the-mill native speakers of English to know anything about grammar; they are fine if they know how to use the language reasonably effectively to communicate with other native speakers of English, and most seem to do well enough in their blissful ignorance. But people who have the temerity to teach what they do not know and to express opinions on what they are seriously uninformed about and think is not worth learning are quite a different story.

I don't need to tell that one, I'm sure.
[nq:1]soyouareaskingapairofparenthesestodothejobofacommawellthatiscertain lygoodenoughforgovernmentworkandihavetohandittoyouforcomingupwithth at novelidea I'm not sure what your highly-compressed objection is, exactly. I'm asking parentheses to set items off parenthetically, yes. Maybe it's just me, but I think there is a connection between parentheses (the symbols) and parentheses (the grammatical construction).[/nq]
The parentheses do their job of setting of the parenthesis (It's singular) very well; as you said, that's what they are for, but they don't serve as a comma, which is what you are asking them to do by not putting that second comma in. That's all I meant. It's a novel idea. "Hi () Joe. When you get to New York () please give me a call".
[nq:1]My objection to the comma has nothing much to do with the parenthesized portion of the phrase, though.[/nq]
And what is your objection to the comma?
[nq:1]Would you write "Ford Motor Company, joins our product-lines"? I would suppose not.[/nq]
No, but I would write "Sueden Centimeter Company, Ltd., joins" if that were the name of the company. "Ltd." and "Inc." are usually set off by commas, as are the names of states in the USA: "I was born in Wilmington, Delaware, but I now live in Juneau, Alaska, the land of the midnight sun". These days there are many comma *** who would refuse to use that second comma, the one after the state name, simply because they don't see any reason for it. "Good enough for government work". That's as good an excuse for ignorance as any. Got it?
[nq:1]How does the presence of a parenthesized symbol change that?[/nq]
It doesn't, of course, but because you objected to the second comma, I naturally assumed that you were certain that it did.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]You don't see any need for a comma after the "(USA)"? "Sueden Centimeter, Inc., (USA)" has an unnecessary comma before ... is that if you put one in, you probably need another to set off what comes after the first comma.[/nq]
It should be pointed out that there are differences of opinion on this matter (in relation to "Inc."). The URLhttp://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/archives/9907/techwhirl-9907-01095.ht ml sets out four different positions without, however, citing authorities for the most part. The issue is perhaps one of style rather than grammar. One common style regards "Inc." (and, I suppose "Inc. (USA)" as parenthetical and thus needing to be set off by commas. This is, I take it, your view. Another eschews commas altogether around Inc., which you say (above) would be acceptable.

A third style does not regard "Inc." as parenthetical and asserts that a comma is used before it only if the company itself does so; the trailing comma in that case would not be required because there is no parenthetical element. That is the view I take. A fourth style asserts (if I read it correctly) that, even though "Inc." *is* parenthetical, a comma afterward should not be used unless the sentence structure requires it (which would not be the case in the examples).

That I believe to be a purely stylistic formula, but one that for one reason or another is increasingly seen. I think it's fair to say that contemporary punctuation styles tend toward fewer punctuation marks, and a general simplification of punctuation in general.
[nq:1]It doesn't, of course, but because you objected to the second comma, I naturally assumed that you were certain that it did.[/nq]
I see that our difference here lies in the way we parse the corporate name. I take it as a unit; you (if I interpret you correctly), take the "Inc." or "Ltd." part as parenthetical. I agree that if it is parenthetical, a trailing comma is required, and it should be placed after the parenthesized word(s).

rzed

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable "rzed" (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:1]It should be pointed out that there are differences of opinion on this matter (in relation to "Inc."). The URL ... "Inc. (USA)" as parenthetical and thus needing to be set off by commas. This is, I take it, your view.[/nq]
My view only if the corporation's legal name contains the comma. Otherwise, I'd go without the comma. It's not grammatically necessary.
[nq:1]Another eschews commas altogether around Inc., which you say (above) would be acceptable.[/nq]
Yes, and the best choice, IMHO.
[nq:1]A third style does not regard "Inc." as parenthetical and asserts that a comma is used before it only if the company itself does so; the trailing comma in that case would not be required because there is no parenthetical element.[/nq]
That is an absurd view, IMHO. But I will not expound on why I think that. It ought to be obvious.
[nq:1]That is the view I take.[/nq]
I cannot say that I blame you for choosing the absurdity. I makes perfect sense to me. I would choose the style without the comma for simplicity's sake.
[nq:1]A fourth style asserts (if I read it correctly) that, even though "Inc." *is* parenthetical, a comma afterward should not be used unless the sentence structure requires it (which would not be the case in the examples).[/nq]
My understanding of when the sentence structure does not require it is when the "Inc." comes at the end of the sentence and is followed by nothing because there is no need for two full stops at the end of the sentence or is followed by another piece of punctuation that takes the place of the final period.
[nq:1]That I believe to be a purely stylistic formula, but one that for one reason or another is increasingly seen. I think it's fair to say that contemporary punctuation styles tend toward fewer punctuation marks, and a general simplification of punctuation in general.[/nq]
Yes, much to the annoyance of pedants and people who understand what punctuation is for. It's not as if people have chosen to abandon punctuation for good reasons, only because printers and publishers began to abandon punctuation in order to save money on ink, on lead for type, and on spaces for characters.
I endorse a great deal of the changes made in English over the past
50 years since I began studying it in earnest. What I don't endorseis the mindless simplification and changing that is so popular of late.
[nq:1]I see that our difference here lies in the way we parse the corporate name. I take it as a ... agree that if it is parenthetical, a trailing comma is required, and it should be placed after the parenthesized word(s).[/nq]Yes, if there is a comma between the company name and the "Inc." or "Ltd.", I take it as parenthetical simply because there is neither a grammatical nor a legal requirement that there be a comma there. It is the same as the name of a state written after a city or town in the state, a parenthetical remark about what state the city or town is in, and what sort of company (incorporated/limited liability) it is. There isn't even a legal requirement that "Inc." be part of the corporate name in California corporation law, so it's only optionally there.

How the parenthesis is punctuated is either a matter of law once the name has been chosen i.e., if you put the comma in, then it's legally part of the company name and technically has to be there (even though the state doesn't give a **** if you omit the comma when they want to take money from you) but I strongly doubt that the omission of the comma would invalidate any contract signed by the corporation's officers.

Usenet · Answer

Hmm ... have I offended you in some way?

rzed

Comma directly before a left parenthesis?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions