0
Daithy Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Question about commas.
I know that when you have an independent clause followed by dependent clause there is no comma:
"He was already hungry when he got home."
I also know that when it is swapped, i.e. dependent clause first and followed by independent clause, a comma must be in place. The dependent clause is then considered "introductory clause":
"When he got home, he was already hungry."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what I would like to know is what happens when a coordinating conjunction is in place instead of a subordinating one.
Example: Let's say that we have a rare case, and a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction "but". Note: (even this sentence is kind of peculiar [we have a rare case, and sentence begins] because I have a placed a comma there to separate two independent clauses; yet it looks odd.)
"But if you search diligently, you will get results."
I cannot reverse this example, so I will slightly modify the example to a classic FANBOYS example:
"You will get results, but you must search diligently." — This one is obvious; textbook example of two indep. clauses divided by coordinating conj.
But what I am uncertain about is the above example: "But if you search diligently, you will get results." Is the comma there for the very same reason [introductory clause] as in the subordinating conj. example?
Thanks.
"He was already hungry when he got home."
I also know that when it is swapped, i.e. dependent clause first and followed by independent clause, a comma must be in place. The dependent clause is then considered "introductory clause":
"When he got home, he was already hungry."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what I would like to know is what happens when a coordinating conjunction is in place instead of a subordinating one.
Example: Let's say that we have a rare case, and a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction "but". Note: (even this sentence is kind of peculiar [we have a rare case, and sentence begins] because I have a placed a comma there to separate two independent clauses; yet it looks odd.)
"But if you search diligently, you will get results."
I cannot reverse this example, so I will slightly modify the example to a classic FANBOYS example:
"You will get results, but you must search diligently." — This one is obvious; textbook example of two indep. clauses divided by coordinating conj.
But what I am uncertain about is the above example: "But if you search diligently, you will get results." Is the comma there for the very same reason [introductory clause] as in the subordinating conj. example?
Thanks.
Top answer
Bump
- Bump
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
0
0
DaithyBut what I am uncertain about is the above example: "But if you search diligently, you will get results." Is the comma there for the very same reason [introductory clause] as in the subordinating conj. example?Even if you removed the 'but', the comma would stay in its place. It's there for the same reason as in your second sentence.
00
Here is my two cents on using comma. The function of a comma is to create a pause in a complex text to help readers understand the text easier. For your example, I really don't see the need for one. In cases where "when" is placed after the main clause. I would just leave it out, i.e. "The victim was already unconscious when the poilce arrived". In case
00
Daithybumper stickerIf you continue to bump posts, you will be put on moderation, Daithy—and then it will take longer for your post to get answered. Have some patience.
00
0
Thanks for the answers everyone.
grammarfreak In cases where a "when " clause precededs the main clause, a comma is preferred; but not necessarily wrong without one.All right, all the videos and blogs on the internet seemed to suggest that it is just plain incorrect, not a question of preference. I am certainly a newbie and by no means I want to challenge you,
00
I wasn't offering any advice, though I was expressing, or sharing my opinion on the topic if you will. The article from the NY firemen website apparently didn not use a comma after the "when-clause". Also, read this article, and decide for yourself.
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/98/10
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/98/10
00
Your article only reaffirms my conviction: you cannot use commas whenever you think there a pause..
"Comma myths
"Comma myths
- Long sentences need a comma - a long sentence may be perfectly fine without commas. The length of a sentence doesn't determine whether you need a comma.
- You should add a comma wherever you pause - different readers pause or breathe in different places. Where yo
00
All the examples I posted in the previous replies tend to suggest that when the context is clear, the trend seems to prevail the omission of the comma. Just like past perfect tense, we were taught to use it to show the sequence of past events. However, if the context is evidently clear, as the example below, it is totatlly acceptable to use simple past tense.
She lived in China for 5 years
She lived in China for 5 years
0
Related Questions