Subordinating Conjunctions

Question

In school, I was always taught that when using a subordinating conjunction to start a sentence, you should place a comma between subordinate clause and the main clause. No issue there! But I was also taught not to use a comma if the subordinate conjunction comes in the middle of the sentence. While this makes sense most of the time, there are a few occasions where it feels like I should be using a comma. Like for instance:

"He'll keep his promise even if it means risking his life."

I think the pause between clauses deserves more emphasis, but using a comma there breaks the rule. Then again, I've seen other grammar sites break the rule too. Like this one:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateconjunction.htm

Again, it states no comma if the subordinate clause comes after the main clause, but then it also gives this example:

"We looked on top of the refrigerator, where Jenny will often hide a bag of chocolate chip cookies."

No explanation is offered as to why this sentence can have a comma.

Can someone please help me sort this out?

Terryxpress · Accepted Answer

I love / I'm intrigued by your question.
I just wish you weren't just an anonymous presence in the forum, so I could respond.
I have a rule: I don't respond to 'faceless' people.

If I'm ready to give of my time and understanding to someone, the least they can do is introduce themselves!

Enoon · Answer

"We looked on top of the refrigerator, where Jenny will often hide a bag of chocolate chip cookies." This means that in an unspecified place on top of the refrigerator, presumably anywhere up there, Jenny hides cookies, and we have to search the whole top for them.

Without the comma, it's "We looked on top of the refrigerator where Jenny will often hide a bag of chocolate chip cookies." This suggests that she hides them in a certain spot, maybe in the back right-hand corner, and we go right to it.

Thanks a lot. Now I want a chocolate chip cookie.

Terryxpress · Answer

No, enoon. It doesn't refer to any place on the refrigerator. It is not the use of a comma per se, but whether the author uses 'where' or 'that' that determines the comma.

Enoon · Answer

TerryxpressNo, enoon. It doesn't refer to any place on the refrigerator. It is not the use of a comma per se, but whether the author uses 'where' or 'that' that determines the comma.

What? Where would "that" go?

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymous"We looked on top of the refrigerator, where Jenny will often hide a bag of chocolate chip cookies."

No explanation is offered as to why this sentence can have a comma.

The comma makes the "where" clause non-restrictive. That is, the clause set off by the comma does not restrict (specify in any greater detail) the meaning of 'refrigerator'. In other words, the clause does not help us determine which refrigerator the speaker is referring to. Here's the difference with and without a comma:

1 the refrigerator, where she hides cookies
2 the refrigerator where she hides cookies

1 The (only) refrigerator (that the speaker could possibly mean), and it happens that she hides cookies there.
2 That particular refrigerator where she hides cookies, and not any other( s ) among two or more refrigerators. (Not, for example, the refrigerator where she keeps milk or the refrigerator that she bought 10 years ago.)

CJ

BillJ · Answer

AnonymousAgain, it states no comma if the subordinate clause comes after the main clause, but then it also gives this example: "We looked on top of the refrigerator, where Jenny will often hide a bag of chocolate chip cookies. "No explanation is offered as to why this sentence can have a comma.

"Where" is not a subordinating conjunction in your example; it's a relative adverb introducing the subordinate relative clause "where Jenny will often hide a bag of chocolate chip cookies".

Subordinate clauses of the non-relative kind are not usually set off by a comma unless the clause is a supplement, in which case a comma is mandatory. However, with relatives clauses special considerations apply (as CJ has explained); it's not a matter of choice: a non-restrictive relative (a kind of supplement) must be marked off by a comma whereas an integrated relative must not.

The relative clause in your example is of the non-restrictive kind (a supplement), hence a comma is required.

BillJ

Subordinating Conjunctions

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions