With or without a comma
The train starts at 6, and it arrives there at 7.
-> The train starts at 6, arriving there at 7.
I know that the comma is needed because the original clause already has the comma.
I can speak English because I learn it from you.
-> I can speak English, learning it from you.
I am wondering if there can be a comma although the original clause doesn't have a comma.
Or should it be like 'I can speak English learning it from you.'?
What do you native English speakers think? Thank you so much as usual in advance.
Top answer
The punctuation in the original sentence is not always a good guideline. com/questions/162594/comma-with-participle-clause If the participle clause relates to the last item in the main clause, no comma is required. In the following sentence, for example, the participle clause applies to "dog".
- The punctuation in the original sentence is not always a good guideline.
- com/questions/162594/comma-with-participle-clause If the participle clause relates to the last item in the main clause, no comma is required.
- In the following sentence, for example, the participle clause applies to "dog".
- He watched the dog wagging its tail.
- If the participle clause refers to something earlier in the sentence, a comma is required.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
The punctuation in the original sentence is not always a good guideline. Instead, use this guideline from
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/162594/comma-with-participle-clause
If the participle clause relates to the last i
0
Related Questions