participial phrase with/without comma

Question

Hi everyone, i was wondering if you could see any difference between the following two sentences:

John travels the country putting on shows wherever he stops.

John travels the country, [comma] putting on shows wherever he stops.

Does the first participial phrase (without the comma) express "putting on shows" more as the purpose of John's traveling? Whereas the second simply describes the "putting on shows" as merely an activity he does while traveling? I know it's quite a subtle difference, but i'd be glad to get an opinion on it

Thanks in advance,

TT

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

I don't see any difference,except the comma would indicate a pause in its reading.

Twistedthistle · Answer

Thanks AS <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

CalifJim · Answer

twistedthistleany difference between the following two sentences:John travels the country putting on shows wherever he stops.John travels the country, [comma] putting on shows wherever he stops.

No difference except that the comma looks wrong to me.

CJ

Twistedthistle · Answer

CalifJimNo difference except that the comma looks wrong to me.

Is it perhaps because the phrase is somehow restrictive? As in the sentence "He died doing what he loved," for example.
I think here the participial phrase is acting adverbially, modifying "died," and perhaps it's the same for the sentence "John travels the country putting on shows wherever he stops." I.e, the participial is a restrictive adverbial modifying "travels" rather than "John." I'm not sure. What do you think?

Also, I wonder, what do you think about the comma in this sentence:

Garry travels the world with his band, making lots of money and performing for royalty.

And if you think that the comma makes sense here, why here and not in the original sentence?

CalifJim · Answer

twistedthistleIs it perhaps because the phrase is somehow restrictive?

That could be, yes, but I wouldn't attempt to make a general rule out of it.

twistedthistleGarry travels the world with his band, making lots of money and performing for royalty.

Here the comma makes more sense to me, maybe because, as you suggest, there is something nonrestrictive about making money in relation to traveling the world.

If you want to make a study of it (and I don't just now), you might try to separate sentences with and without the comma before the final participial clause and then classify them according to what logical relationship they imply between the main clause and the participial clause. See whether this relationship tends to affect the choice of comma or no comma.

For example, in
travels the country putting on shows,
putting on shows is not a result of traveling the country,
(It's what happens as the "traveling the country" happens so it's more of a simultaneous temporal relationship.)
but in travels the world, making a lot of money,
making a lot of money is a result of traveling the world.

This would be a very ambitious project. I suspect you would need to collect up to a hundred examples to prove anything significant.

CJ

Twistedthistle · Answer

Excellent answer, CJ. Thank you very much!

participial phrase with/without comma

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions