Comma after adverbial phrase
Stefan Boeters
native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
that are placed at the beginning of a sentence. I was surprised not to
find a corresponding entry in Swan's "Practical English Usage", which
usually can help in cases like that. So what about these sentences:
"In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
contributions."
"Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
"Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
"In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
Are the commas in parentheses obligatory? Or are they optional,
corresponding to the author's (my) intention to indicate a pause in
speech?
If they are optional, what would be your choice?
Stefan
--
-------------------------------------
Stefan Boeters
Centre for European Economic Research
Mannheim, Germany
boe...@zew.de
-------------------------------------
Franke
Stefan Boeters wrote:
> These days I had a short paper of mine proofread by a colleague whose
> native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
> writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
> that are placed at the beginning of a sentence. I was surprised not to
> find a corresponding entry in Swan's "Practical English Usage", which
> usually can help in cases like that. So what about these sentences:
>
> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
> contributions."
> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
>
> Are the commas in parentheses obligatory? Or are they optional,
> corresponding to the author's (my) intention to indicate a pause in
> speech?
>
> If they are optional, what would be your choice?
The current conventional wisdom about optional commas is to avoid them:
They are optional because they perform no necessary function. The only
time a comma is required in the instances above is when there might be
some difficulty for the reader, but I see no such difficulty in any of
these. There is another general rule of thumb in American English that I
usually follow: When the introductory adverbial clause is longer than 4
words, use a comma to separate it from the main clause. Many years ago it
was necessary to use commas in front of any introductory adverbial clause,
but we don't believe that anymore. Your American friend is living in the
grammatical past, I fear. Disregard her admonitions about such commas.
Padraig Breathnach
>Stefan Boeters wrote:
>
>> These days I had a short paper of mine proofread by a colleague whose
>> native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
>> writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
>> that are placed at the beginning of a sentence. I was surprised not to
>> find a corresponding entry in Swan's "Practical English Usage", which
>> usually can help in cases like that. So what about these sentences:
>>
>> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
>> contributions."
>> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
>> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
>> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
>>
>> Are the commas in parentheses obligatory? Or are they optional,
>> corresponding to the author's (my) intention to indicate a pause in
>> speech?
>>
>> If they are optional, what would be your choice?
>
>The current conventional wisdom about optional commas is to avoid them:
>They are optional because they perform no necessary function. The only
>time a comma is required in the instances above is when there might be
>some difficulty for the reader, but I see no such difficulty in any of
>these.
I agree broadly with this, but think that there can also be an element
of style preference in decisions. To address Stefan's examples
individually, this is what I would do:
>> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
>> contributions."
No comma.
>> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
Variable! It would depend on the rhythm of the piece.
>> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
Comma. "Unfortunately" reads to me like a truncated phrase, meaning
"Unfortunately for <somebody or something.", and I would use the comma
in recognition of the truncation.
>> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
I would not write this. I would specify a little more, such as "In the
following pages..." or "In the following paragraph...". I would use a
comma for rhythm because of the length of the phrase.
>There is another general rule of thumb in American English that I
>usually follow: When the introductory adverbial clause is longer than 4
>words, use a comma to separate it from the main clause.
Agreed. As a general rule rather than an absolute one.
PB
N.Mitchum
-----
> I had a short paper of mine proofread by a colleague whose
> native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
> writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
>
> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
> contributions."
> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
>
> Are the commas in parentheses obligatory? Or are they optional,
> corresponding to the author's (my) intention to indicate a pause in
> speech?
>
> If they are optional, what would be your choice?
They're optional. The shorter the phrase, I find, the less
necessary the comma. In your first sentence, it could be omitted
without any loss of clarity. I would probably use commas in the
second and last sentences, just for the sake of rhythm, but they
aren't required. The sentence modifier in the third sentence is
fifty-fifty -- I think I'd have to see the entire sentence before
deciding.
----NM
ref
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Stefan Boeters wrote:
> These days I had a short paper of mine proofread by a colleague whose
> native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
> writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
> that are placed at the beginning of a sentence. I was surprised not to
> find a corresponding entry in Swan's "Practical English Usage", which
> usually can help in cases like that. So what about these sentences:
>
> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
> contributions."
> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
>
> Are the commas in parentheses obligatory? Or are they optional,
> corresponding to the author's (my) intention to indicate a pause in
> speech?
>
> If they are optional, what would be your choice?
Optional in these particular cases. I tend to avoid excessive use of
commas, but I'm not sure what I'd do here. I think I do generally use
commas to indicate a marked pause in the intended spoken rendition of the
sentence.
William
news:3ACED170...@zew.de...
> These days I had a short paper of mine proofread by a colleague whose
> native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
> writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
> that are placed at the beginning of a sentence. I was surprised not to
> find a corresponding entry in Swan's "Practical English Usage", which
> usually can help in cases like that. So what about these sentences:
>
> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
> contributions."
Based on how I learned to use commas in school, and without any other
context,
here's how I would interpret this sentence, for example, with and without a
comma.
With the comma this means, to me, the same as: "We witness ongoing
attempts to lower social security contributions in Germany." That is,
the speaker is witnessing something in Germany from outside.
Without the comma, it's more ambiguous to my "ear" - it reads as
though the speaker might be in Germany, commenting on the state of
affairs around them.
Of course, with a little context, either interpretation could be
automatic, and such sentences don't always lend themselves to
ambiguity, even internally. (This one just happens to make sense
either way.) -Wm
Rainer Thonnes
Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes:
>Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>>
>>The current conventional wisdom about optional commas is to avoid them:
>>They are optional because they perform no necessary function. The only
>>time a comma is required in the instances above is when there might be
>>some difficulty for the reader, but I see no such difficulty in any of
>>these.
>
>I agree broadly with this, but think that there can also be an element
>of style preference in decisions.
Quite.
> To address Stefan's examples
>individually, this is what I would do:
>
>>> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
>>> contributions."
>No comma.
Agreed.
>>> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
>Variable! It would depend on the rhythm of the piece.
Disagree. I see nothing stylistically significantly different from
the previuous example. No comma.
>>> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
>Comma. "Unfortunately" reads to me like a truncated phrase, meaning
>"Unfortunately for <somebody or something.", and I would use the comma
>in recognition of the truncation.
So would I, but more intuitively than for the specific reason you cite.
I don't entirely like your choice of truncated phrase, and reckon that
what tends really to be meant is something like "it is unfortunate that",
and if it were written out in full like that, then no comma would be
allowed.
>>> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
>I would not write this. I would specify a little more, such as "In the
>following pages..." or "In the following paragraph...". I would use a
>comma for rhythm because of the length of the phrase.
I'd probably write "In what follows ...", which is short enough to do
without a comma. I prefer to avoid commas except where they act to
prevent the reader from parsing the sentence wrongly, and having to
back-track later. That is not the case here. I might use one for
length reasons, but the length would need to be rather bigger than
in your examples before I'd deploy one.
>>There is another general rule of thumb in American English that I
>>usually follow: When the introductory adverbial clause is longer than 4
>>words, use a comma to separate it from the main clause.
>
>Agreed. As a general rule rather than an absolute one.
Four is nowhere near enough.
Iannis Kyris
>
> Without the comma, it's more ambiguous to my "ear"
And that reminds me of a very funny (and probably well-known) example:
'Once she had the dress off she would go in search of matching shoes, gloves
and a handbag.'
Regards
--
Iannis Kyris
Athens, Greece
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'There are no answers, only cross-references'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please remove z and 57 from email address
Maria Conlon
Franke wrote in message
>Stefan Boeters wrote:
I'm not Stefan's American colleague, but I share her opinion. So, here I
am, going against the tide of already-given opinions that the commas are
pretty much superfluous.
Although I would like to see the paragraphs from which these examples
are taken, my feeling is that the commas should be used.
So am I living in the grammatical past? Or am I a soldier in a
worthwhile fight against unnecessary and possibly confusion-inducing
streamlining...?
PFC Maria
D. Sosnoski
> These days I had a short paper of mine proofread by a colleague whose
> native language is American English. Her main disagreement with my
> writing was about my not putting a comma after some adverbial phrases
> that are placed at the beginning of a sentence. I was surprised not to
> find a corresponding entry in Swan's "Practical English Usage", which
> usually can help in cases like that. So what about these sentences:
>
> "In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
> contributions."
Introductory clauses are, in general, set off with commas. So are
introductory phrases, infinitive phrases, and long phrases. You should
also use a comma to set off parenthetical elements, addresses, and
dates. One easy test to see if that comma is required is to determine
whether or not the clause or phrase concerned is restrictive (in which
case you probably won't use a comma) or non-restrictive (in which case
you will).* Some of the answers to your question that others have given
make note of the "restrictive vs. non-restrictive" consideration: the
meaning can change somewhat if the comma is inserted or removed.
Let's look at your first example. You could say "We witness ongoing
attempts to lower Social Security contributions," and in doing so be
grammatically correct. This implies that an introductory clause such as
"In Germany," "Before the Civil War," or the like will usually take a
comma. Any advice you've been given regarding "four words or more,"
etc., is flat-out incorrect.
> "Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
Again, "It is astonishing that..." will probably give you a coherent
sentence. "Against this background" is parenthetical, so the comma that
follows it is appropriate.
> "Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
> "In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
"Unfortunately," "However," "Nevertheless," and so on are usually set
off with commas both by convention and for all the reasons given above.
> Are the commas in parentheses obligatory? Or are they optional,
> corresponding to the author's (my) intention to indicate a pause in
> speech?
Concerning the comma used to set off a long phrase, the natural question
is, "How long is long?" In these cases, where a pause in speech would be
natural, so is the comma.
Oscar Wilde is said to have been asked one day, "What did you do this
morning?" He replied, "I put a comma in a sentence." Whereupon he was
asked, "And what did you do the rest of the day?"
"I took it out again."
Cheers,
DLS
* Cf. WDEU, CMoS, WIT, K. Judd's _Copyediting_, et al.
--
D. Sosnoski
gol...@entercomp.com
"We are the people who care; we've registered
for the linguistic primary." - W.S.
Franke
Maria Conlon wrote:
If not using a comma causes confusion, then the comma should be used. If you
feel that eliminating as many commas as possible is unnecessary, then I
would say you should not do it. I think it is a matter of style manuals (the
copy editor will decide, when your work is published, unless you are
important enough to override her judgment) or personal taste.
Here are some URLs that deal with the subject:
1. http://www.vic.uh.edu/ac/grammar/commau.html
2. http://itc.sulross.edu/raustin/comma.htm [unfinished]
3. http://www.weber.edu/writingcenter/an_introduction_to_comma_usage.htm
4. http://www.writeitwell.com/commas.htm [site that sells a book called
"Just Commas". kinda reminds me of that very old SNL skit about the tape
store that sold "just the sticky kind"]
5. http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm [The most interesting of
the lot]
6.
http://jade.ccccd.edu/jmiller/A%20Brief_%20No-Nonsense%20Guide%20to%20Comma%20Usage.htm
[Best comic strip]
All of the above web pages say to set off an introductory phrase with a
comma and you won't be wrong. I agree it isn't wrong but I don't think it's
always necessary.
Maria Conlon
Franke wrote in message
>Maria wrote:
Thanks for the URLs, Franke. I intend to take a look at them. I'm not
guaranteeing I'll change my mind, but I will check out the reasoning
these sites offer and see if I need to modernize a bit.
Maria
Stefan Boeters
URLs Franke provided seem to cover all standpoints one could reasonably
hold. I'll check my sentences according to them and according to the
suggestions in the thread.
Stefan
Stephen Toogood
<mcon...@sprynet.com> writes
>
>Franke wrote in message
>
>>If not using a comma causes confusion, then the comma should be used.
>If you
>>feel that eliminating as many commas as possible is unnecessary, then I
>>would say you should not do it. I think it is a matter of style manuals
>(the
>>copy editor will decide, when your work is published, unless you are
>>important enough to override her judgment) or personal taste.
>>
>>All of the above web pages say to set off an introductory phrase with a
>>comma and you won't be wrong. I agree it isn't wrong but I don't think
>it's
>>always necessary.
>
>
>Thanks for the URLs, Franke. I intend to take a look at them. I'm not
>guaranteeing I'll change my mind, but I will check out the reasoning
>these sites offer and see if I need to modernize a bit.
>
people's use of commas often (not always) reflects how they actually
read sentences. If we take Stefan's original four:
"In Germany(,) we witness ongoing attemps to lower social security
contributions."
"Against this background(,) it is astonishing that ..."
"Unfortunately(,) the analytic steps that led the author to ..."
"In the following(,) I present my own wiev of ..."
I reckon you would find a correlation between people who would pause at
the points in question, and those who would put a comma there.
If there is an odd-man-out, then it's the third, because 'unfortunately'
has more of the feel of a sentence adverb. But I still wouldn't put a
comma in.
In the case of the fourth, then I would openly discourage the comma. If
you wrote the sentence the other way 'I present my view of [the Eastern
Question] in the following' you wouldn't tolerate it. Why is Stefan's
word order any different?
--
Stephen Toogood
Franke
Stephen Toogood wrote:
Because the order is PP-S-V-O instead of S-V-O-PP, so it is like the first
and second sentences and writers would probably follow your rule of thumb
about putting the comma in where they actually pause in speech.
Gene Wirchenko
>William wrote:
>>
>> Without the comma, it's more ambiguous to my "ear"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I prefer commas myself to avoid ambiguity.
>And that reminds me of a very funny (and probably well-known) example:
>
>'Once she had the dress off she would go in search of matching shoes, gloves
>and a handbag.'
Thank you for the example!
There are two commas missing!
Once she had the dress off she would go in search of
^ ^
Depending on intended meaning, insert a comma at one of
the indicated points.
matching shoes, gloves and a handbag.
^
Insert a comma.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.