comma before if

[Andy]

Is it essential to put a comma in a conditional sentence such as:

I will go to London, if I can afford it.

I would do my homework, if I had the time.

I would, if I could but I can't.

I was told, in a conditional sentence a comma is mandatory before the "if"

Please reply to cor...@hotmail.com

[Robin]

In article
<Pine.SGI.3.91.971202...@bragg.chemie.fu-berlin.de>, Andy
<asei...@chemie.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

It was drilled into our business-major heads in high school many years ago
to add one more comma in the sentences you demonstrate:

I would, if I could, but I can't.
I was told, in a conditional sentence, a comma is mandatory....

--
Robin (mail2me at earthlink dot net)

[PLamble]

Curious.

For several years I taught basic composition at the local junior college. Our
text and our department guidelines would NOT have put the comma before the
conditional phrases as your examples showed.
The reason was because the phrase is simply too short to merit the extra
punctuation and clutter. The reader (of the written sentence) would generally
not have trouble understanding your meaning, so the punctuation is not needed
to assist. (Obviously, if you spoke the sentence, your intonation would direct
the reader.)

The textbooks I've seen have begun a drift away from excess punctuation.
Simplicity seems to be the new god in the pantheon. So unless the comma is
needed for clarity of meaning, it is considered superfluous.

That's what I think, anyway.
Pablo

[BILLM...@delphi.com]

Quoting Andy<aseipold from a message in alt.english.usage

>Is it essential to put a comma in a conditional sentence such as:

Yes

>I will go to London, if I can afford it.
>I would do my homework, if I had the time.
>I would, if I could but I can't.

Also, a comma is generally used before "but", or in this case
possibly a semicolon.

>I was told, in a conditional sentence a comma is mandatory before the
>"if"

Only if the "if" clause follows the the main clause.

Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
billmccray at delphi dot com

[Robin]

Our
> text and our department guidelines would NOT have put the comma before the
> conditional phrases as your examples showed.

The original author of the post put the commas before the conditional
phrase - I completed it by placing the additional comma at the end of the
conditional phrase, as I was taught circa 1967-69 in a So. Calif. high
school English departmetn. This is how I continue to construct my
sentences today because, as you said, this is how my intonation would
direct the reader if I were to speak the sentence. The use of commas
surrounding conditional phrases makes the sentence so clear and easy to
understand. It seems SO right.

I want to keep current on what is correct. Before I consider
relinquishing my commas, which will be painful, are you certain, Pablo?
Robin

[Charles (Joe) Stahelin]

It would help if contributors whose e-mail address does not disclose the
country of origin and, therefore, the brand of English they are probably
using would disclose it in the text of their article. There is no doubt
that what is considered normal and proper usage does vary according to
local habit and there is little to be gained from energetic discussions
arising from such variations. Although it may be regretted by many,
the use of English is so widespread that the number of acceptable
versions of it borders on the infinite.

As regards the article quoted below: The reported drift away from
excess punctuation towards simplicity is likely to result in increased
ambiguity of meaning, and should be resisted but not to such an extreme
that ordinary communications resemble legal documents.
-----------------
In article <19971203123...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, PLamble
<pla...@aol.com> writes
>For several years I taught basic composition at the local junior college. Our

>text and our department guidelines would NOT have put the comma before the
>conditional phrases as your examples showed.

>The reason was because the phrase is simply too short to merit the extra
>punctuation and clutter. The reader (of the written sentence) would generally
>not have trouble understanding your meaning, so the punctuation is not needed
>to assist. (Obviously, if you spoke the sentence, your intonation would direct
>the reader.)
>
>The textbooks I've seen have begun a drift away from excess punctuation.
>Simplicity seems to be the new god in the pantheon. So unless the comma is
>needed for clarity of meaning, it is considered superfluous.

--
Charles (Joe) Stahelin
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK