participle phrase

Question

The following sentences and explanation was found from a respected grammar website. … I’m curious about sentence number two because it seems to me like there should be no comma. Is the comma only necessary if the information is considered nonessential?

If a participial phrase comes at the end of a sentence, a comma usually precedes the phrase if it modifies an earlier word in the sentence but not if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies.

1) The local residents often saw Ken wandering through the streets.

2) I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting.

Goodman · Accepted Answer

Chrismlangan

The following sentences and explanation was found from a respected grammar website. … I’m curious about sentence number two because it seems to me like there should be no comma. Is the comma only necessary if the information is considered nonessential?

If a participial phrase comes at the end of a sentence, a comma usually precedes the phrase if it modifies an earlier word in the sentence but not if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies.

1) The local residents often saw Ken wandering through the streets.

2) I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting.

Hi,

With this kind of sentence structure, comma is not needed. i.e. I heard someone walking upstairs last night.

I heard someone in the middle of the night (doing what?) walking / arguing/ singing upstair/ - participle clause describing the act.

For # 2, which is an entirely different sentence structure, I would just say: I was irritated by Bill's constant interruption. When we use "by" in the passive structure, the "ing" form of a verb becomes a gerrund/ noun and not a partciple.

CalifJim · Answer

It's a bad example. It seems to me that the explanation has just said not to place a comma if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies, but the example seems to indicate that Bill was constantly interrupting, but there's a comma anyway! Very contradictory.

CJ

Chrismlangan · Answer

After doing some more research, it seems that most people out there object to there earlier rule that I presented.  Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the 'rule' is nothing more than a 'hoax'.

CalifJim · Answer

I think the website intended something like this:

Bill really irritated me, constantly interrupting.

That seems all right to me.

CJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

Chrismlangan2) I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting.

Hi Cl

It seems to me as if constantly interrupting has been added as an afterthought, which explains the comma. Another way to interpret the sentence would be to consider constantly interrupting a shortened relative clause:

I was irritated by Bill, who was constantly interrupting.

In that case the comma would be required as the relative clause would be nonrestrictive. Who is the subject of a nonrestrictive relative clause and the relative pronoun is rarely omitted in such sentences. Omission occurs more frequently in restrictive clauses:

There is somebody at the door (who/that) wants to see you.

Cheers
CB

Goodman · Answer

<<There is somebody at the door (who/that) wants to see you.>>

In addition to CB's comment, alternatively, it can be expressed as: "there is somebody at the door asking / wanting to see you". In this type of participle phrase, I would say comma is unneccesary.

CalifJim · Answer

There is somebody at the door (who/that) wants to see you.

I'm of the school that says the omission of a subject relative pronoun is ungrammatical, so I would not include the parentheses there.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

The sentence should have been written

I was irritated by Bill's constantly interrupting.

As someone pointed out, "interrupting" is a gerund in this case. Bill owns "interrupting" and so the need for the possessive.

participle phrase

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions