0
JJDouglas Posted 10 years ago
Grammar
When is a dependent clause purely supplementary?
Normally, a dependent clause following an independent clause doesn't require a comma, but the CMOS suggests, in section 6.31, that it may be required if the dependent clause is purely supplementary or parenthetical. Is there a simple method to tell if a dependent clause is like this?
For instance, in the following example, a comma seemed necessary to me, but I can't explain why. I may well be incorrect.
"All these setbacks will unnecessarily waste your time and halt your income, when you should be focusing on giving your customers the best service possible."
Is the dependent clause parenthetical in this example, or is the comma incorrect?
For instance, in the following example, a comma seemed necessary to me, but I can't explain why. I may well be incorrect.
"All these setbacks will unnecessarily waste your time and halt your income, when you should be focusing on giving your customers the best service possible."
Is the dependent clause parenthetical in this example, or is the comma incorrect?
Top answer
I believe that the comma is unnecessary in your example.
- I believe that the comma is unnecessary in your example.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
0
JJDouglas"All these setbacks will unnecessarily waste your time and halt your income, when you should be focusing on giving your customers the best service possible."In my opinion, the only reason for which you could keep a comma there is to separate the clause "and halt your income" by putting another comma after "time", i.e., "All these setbacks will unnece
0
Related Questions