0
English 1b3 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar

To comma or not to

He scolded his critics for exploiting the trauma of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to justify what he exposed.

I believe there should be no comma after '2001'. Please can you confirm.

Thank you
  

Top answer

Having the comma after 2001 makes it absolutely clear that a year is mentioned. Without the comma, the reader might be momentarily misled to think that there were 2001 terrorist attacks. CB

— Cool Breeze

  • Having the comma after 2001 makes it absolutely clear that a year is mentioned.
  • Without the comma, the reader might be momentarily misled to think that there were 2001 terrorist attacks.
  • CB
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

1 Answers
0
Having the comma after 2001 makes it absolutely clear that a year is mentioned. Without the comma, the reader might be momentarily misled to think that there were 2001 terrorist attacks.

CB
0

Related Questions