a) The story centres on a very valuable work of art, The Last Supper, which supposedly has a hidden meaning.
b) Emma Watson plays the bright & charming new student at Hogwarts Hermione Granger.
When we say the subject is understood and therefore non-essential, how do you determine what is a sufficient indentifier as rule of thumb - or is just stylistic choice if the information is vague?
For instance, in a) we know from context, not present here, that we are discussing the Da Vinci Code and therefore we understand which work of art we are discussing versus:
The valuable work of art The Last Supper features in the film the Da Vinci Code. (no context)
But in b) the description itself could reasonably refer to any number of students for those unfamiliar with Harry Potter, but only that actress plays Hermione - so should a comma be used to set off Hermione or not?
The context is clear but not the description itself.
panda blue 483 so should a comma be used to set off Hermione or not? Not unless we already know of the existence of a "bright & charming new student", to whom we are now giving a name. With a comma, the name is supplementary information and the sentence should still make sense if the name is removed.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
panda blue 483so should a comma be used to set off Hermione or not?
Not unless we already know of the existence of a "bright & charming new student", to whom we are now giving a name. With a comma, the name is supplementary information and the sentence should still make sense if the name is removed. Without any prior information, "Emma Watson plays the