0
Dmilton85 Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
General Grammar question
I'm reading Eats, Shoots & leave to try and improve my grammar. While reading I'm trying to make sense of how the books itself is written. I've found a few sentences I'm not able to make sence of; can anymore shed some light on them for me?
A couple of weeks after Eats, Shoots & Leaves was first published in November 2003, I met an old dub-editor friend at a party who said: "You've written a whole book on puncutation? How fascinating!"
My question is why is there a comma between 2003 and I. "A couple of weeks after Eats, Shoots & Leaves was first published in November 2003" cannot stand alone as a sentence, but it is not a subordinating clause because it lacks a subordinating conjunction. Is this a case where bracket commas are used, but only one shows due to the information comming at the front of the sentence?
"How Fascinating!" and then went on to explain that, funnily enough, he had once devised a rather good comic routine around a martial art called Pung Shway Shon, in which the karate-style moves ewere dervied from well-known punctuation markes.
Here why is there are comma between Shon and In. I know Which can mean a relative clause which needs a comma is the information is non-essential to the sentence. Is that what's happening here? I thought relative clauses had to start with words like Which, With, Who, When Why etc. This example starts with a preposition - in. Can relative clauses do that? Or is this not a relative clause?
A couple of weeks after Eats, Shoots & Leaves was first published in November 2003, I met an old dub-editor friend at a party who said: "You've written a whole book on puncutation? How fascinating!"
My question is why is there a comma between 2003 and I. "A couple of weeks after Eats, Shoots & Leaves was first published in November 2003" cannot stand alone as a sentence, but it is not a subordinating clause because it lacks a subordinating conjunction. Is this a case where bracket commas are used, but only one shows due to the information comming at the front of the sentence?
"How Fascinating!" and then went on to explain that, funnily enough, he had once devised a rather good comic routine around a martial art called Pung Shway Shon, in which the karate-style moves ewere dervied from well-known punctuation markes.
Here why is there are comma between Shon and In. I know Which can mean a relative clause which needs a comma is the information is non-essential to the sentence. Is that what's happening here? I thought relative clauses had to start with words like Which, With, Who, When Why etc. This example starts with a preposition - in. Can relative clauses do that? Or is this not a relative clause?
Top answer
-- Fronted adverbials, especially long ones, are normally followed by a comma for clarity. Here why is there are comma between Shon and In. -- It is a non-restrictive relative clause.
- -- Fronted adverbials, especially long ones, are normally followed by a comma for clarity.
- Here why is there are comma between Shon and In.
- -- It is a non-restrictive relative clause.
- It can be recast (though perhaps more awkwardly) as: Pung Shway Shon, which the karate-style moves were derived from well-known punctuation marks in.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
My question is why is there a comma between 2003 and I.-- Fronted adverbials, especially long ones, are normally followed by a comma for clarity.
Here why is there are comma between Shon and In. -- It is a non-restrictive relative clause. It can be recast (though perhaps more awkwardly) as:
Pung Shway Shon, which the karate-style moves were derived fro
Here why is there are comma between Shon and In. -- It is a non-restrictive relative clause. It can be recast (though perhaps more awkwardly) as:
Pung Shway Shon, which the karate-style moves were derived fro
00
0
Presumably a "fronted adverbial" is an adverbial phrase that is in front of - that is, earlier in the sentence than - the word it modifies.
00
0
Ok I have a new question. When writing a cover letter the RE: where you list the job and reference number i.e. RE: English Teacher position Ref 1234.
Does this go before the Dear Mr. Smith or after? I've seen examples on line of it going before and after so I'm unclear as to what's the correct placement.
Does this go before the Dear Mr. Smith or after? I've seen examples on line of it going before and after so I'm unclear as to what's the correct placement.
00
You have seen what is in practice. There are two ways of doing it. However, you needn't use the RE line at all. Most cover letters mention it in the first line of the body:
Dear Mr Smith,
I am writing in application for the position of English Teacher (Ref 1234) as advertised in your website 12 June 2011.
Dear Mr Smith,
I am writing in application for the position of English Teacher (Ref 1234) as advertised in your website 12 June 2011.
00
I know there is a similar rule with sub claused (when they come before the main clause their is a comma to seperate them).
I've found that sometimes conjunctions can have a different role in a sentence i.e. can be a conjunction or preposition depending on how used.
In this e.g. is since a subordinating conjunction.
Since leaving university, I have worked for the Gap and
I've found that sometimes conjunctions can have a different role in a sentence i.e. can be a conjunction or preposition depending on how used.
In this e.g. is since a subordinating conjunction.
Since leaving university, I have worked for the Gap and
0
Related Questions