Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Another comma inquiry 9
- Thread starter KornGeek
- Start date
PaulBricker
Programmer
I'll opt for a comma after SMITH. That would be the only one I'd use.
Paul
Paul
It really depends on what you mean to say. For example,
Of course, I'm usually wrong and someone here will correct me. ;-)
James P. Cottingham
[sup]I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229![/sup]
would indicate that you are John Smith and a colleague from another company has something useful for you.
On the other hand this would seem to indicate that your colleague is John Smith and has something useful for you.
Of course, I'm usually wrong and someone here will correct me. ;-)
James P. Cottingham
[sup]I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229![/sup]
-
6
- #4
CajunCenturion
Programmer
There are many different ways to correctly punctuate that sentence. How you choose depends on how much emphasis you want to place on the two nested parenthetical elements. The basic sentence is the following:
"Your colleague thought you would find this useful."
The outer parenthetical element is "John Smith from Some Fictional Company" and you may choose not to set it off, or you may set it off from the basic sentence by either commas, parenthesis, or dashes. Any one of the following three is correct:
[li]"Your colleague, John Smith from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful."[/li]
[li]"Your colleague (John Smith from Some Fictional Company) thought you would find this useful."[/li]
[li]"Your colleague - John Smith from Some Fictional Company - thought you would find this useful."[/li]
Interestingly, within the parenthetical element "John Smith from Some Fictional Company" in a second parenthetical element "from Some Fictional Company". The reason that it's a second parenthetical element is that you could quite easily say:
[li]"Your colleague, John Smith, thought you would find this useful."[/li](Again, you could use any of the three aforementioned punctuation options to isolate 'John Smith'.)
You have the option to use either of two remaining punctuation marks for the embedded parenthetical element. In other words, if you use commas for the outer element, then you may use either the parenthesis or the dash for the inner element, but not the comma. If you use the dash for the outer element, then you may not use the dash for the inner element.
Wrong: [li]Your colleague, John Smith, from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful.[/li]
Ok: [li]Your colleague, John Smith (from Some Fictional Company), thought you would find this useful.[/li]
The only other rule that comes into play is that when dash is used and the inner element ends at the same location as the outer element, then you do not use the closing dash. In the case, you only use the first dash.
Wrong: [li]Your colleague, John Smith - from Some Fictional Company - , thought you would find this useful.[/li]
Right: [li]Your colleague, John Smith - from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful.[/li]
My choice would be to use commas for the outer element and nothing for the inner element. I would say:
[li]"Your colleague, John Smith from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful."[/li]
Ok Dave, bring it on.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
"Your colleague thought you would find this useful."
The outer parenthetical element is "John Smith from Some Fictional Company" and you may choose not to set it off, or you may set it off from the basic sentence by either commas, parenthesis, or dashes. Any one of the following three is correct:
[li]"Your colleague, John Smith from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful."[/li]
[li]"Your colleague (John Smith from Some Fictional Company) thought you would find this useful."[/li]
[li]"Your colleague - John Smith from Some Fictional Company - thought you would find this useful."[/li]
Interestingly, within the parenthetical element "John Smith from Some Fictional Company" in a second parenthetical element "from Some Fictional Company". The reason that it's a second parenthetical element is that you could quite easily say:
[li]"Your colleague, John Smith, thought you would find this useful."[/li](Again, you could use any of the three aforementioned punctuation options to isolate 'John Smith'.)
You have the option to use either of two remaining punctuation marks for the embedded parenthetical element. In other words, if you use commas for the outer element, then you may use either the parenthesis or the dash for the inner element, but not the comma. If you use the dash for the outer element, then you may not use the dash for the inner element.
Wrong: [li]Your colleague, John Smith, from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful.[/li]
Ok: [li]Your colleague, John Smith (from Some Fictional Company), thought you would find this useful.[/li]
The only other rule that comes into play is that when dash is used and the inner element ends at the same location as the outer element, then you do not use the closing dash. In the case, you only use the first dash.
Wrong: [li]Your colleague, John Smith - from Some Fictional Company - , thought you would find this useful.[/li]
Right: [li]Your colleague, John Smith - from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful.[/li]
My choice would be to use commas for the outer element and nothing for the inner element. I would say:
[li]"Your colleague, John Smith from Some Fictional Company, thought you would find this useful."[/li]
Ok Dave, bring it on.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
SantaMufasa
Technical User
CC,
I'm always delighted to see your explanations because they are so complete and so right on ! Please enjoy the corruscating
!
![[santa]](/data/assets/smilies/santa.gif "[santa] [santa]")
Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
I'm always delighted to see your explanations because they are so complete and so right on ! Please enjoy the corruscating
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
-
3
- #7
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
->Another comma inquiry
Nobody expects the comma inquisition!
[tt][blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
Nobody expects the comma inquisition!
[tt][blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
- Thread starter
- #8
John,
Thankfully I was only reaching for my drink and it wasn't yet in my mouth when I read that. My boss wouldn't appreciate a keyboard and monitors sprayed with sweet tea.
CC,
Thank you for your thorough explanation. I knew that what I suggested was right, but what was lacking was how to explain it. (Also, I didn't realize the rule about not using the same punctuation mark for both the inner and outer elements, so it was nice to learn something new.)
Aside from my suggestion (which was the commas on the outer element only), I had one suggestion to use no commas at all. The other suggestions were as follows:
Both of those bothered me because I knew they were wrong, but I couldn't think of how to explain it.
Thankfully I was only reaching for my drink and it wasn't yet in my mouth when I read that. My boss wouldn't appreciate a keyboard and monitors sprayed with sweet tea.
CC,
Thank you for your thorough explanation. I knew that what I suggested was right, but what was lacking was how to explain it. (Also, I didn't realize the rule about not using the same punctuation mark for both the inner and outer elements, so it was nice to learn something new.)
Aside from my suggestion (which was the commas on the outer element only), I had one suggestion to use no commas at all. The other suggestions were as follows:
Both of those bothered me because I knew they were wrong, but I couldn't think of how to explain it.
LeeMcCauslin
MIS
I think this has two too many commas too. Am I right?
Or is it a matter of style?
Or is it a matter of style?
Cool Hand Luke said:
CajunCenturion
Programmer
No, I don't think it suffers from two too many commas, at least not as written.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
LeeMcCauslin
MIS
Well rats. At least the bet didn't involve me and a tutu if I lost.
Cool Hand Luke said:
I would break it up into two sentences.
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff, who make the donation experience unique and enriching. They do a great job representing our company every day.
"NOTHING is more important in a database than integrity." ESquared
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff, who make the donation experience unique and enriching. They do a great job representing our company every day.
"NOTHING is more important in a database than integrity." ESquared
SantaMufasa
Technical User
Actually, Lee, I would tend to agree since the conventional grammatical wisdom says that one precedes a conjunction with a comma if the conjunction joins two otherwise complete sentences. In your example, what follows the conjunction ("and") is not a complete sentence and does not warrant a comma preceding the conjunction.Lee said:
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
CajunCenturion
Programmer
That's possible Dave, and you're right about the comma and conjunction with independent clauses. However, I don't think that is what we have here. I view this sentence as one independent clause (XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff), with two non-restrictive subordinate clauses each introduced by the relative pronoun 'who' (who represent our organization every day and who make the donation experience unique and enriching). From our previous "that vs which" discussions, we know that non-restrictive clauses are set off with commas, and in this case, there is one comma for each non-restrictive clause. That's why I answered, "No, at least not as written".
What I find awkward is the use of 'and' between the two non-restrictive clauses. Personally, I always try to avoid multiple subordinate clauses for a couple of reasons, not the least being the ambiguity of whether the second clause modifies the independent clause or modifies the first subordinate clause. Let's assume that both clauses apply to the independent clause and adjust the construction to match. We can do that combining the two non-restrictive clauses into one clause by removing the second 'who'.
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff, who represent our organization every day and make the donation experience unique and enriching.
At this point, I'm going to jump back into the restrictive vs non-restrictive debate because I think this sentence provides an outstanding example of the difference between the two and how that difference affects the semantics of a sentence.
Now let's look at the sentence without the comma thus making the clause restrictive:
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff who represent our organization every day and make the donation experience unique and enriching.
By removing the comma, we make the clause restrictive and that means we have two kinds of front-line staff. We have those that DO represent the company and make the donation experience unique and enriching, and we have those that DO NOT represent the company and so forth. Only the front-line staff that DO represent the company and make the experience enriching are being honored. That's the restriction.
Conversely, if we include the comma, thus making the clause non-restrictive, we have this:
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff, who represent our organization every day and make the donation experience unique and enriching.
The comma makes the clause non-restrictive and that means there is no restriction on the front-line staff being honored. All the front-line staff represent the organization, and all are being honored. There are no restrictions on the staff being honored.
That comma makes a big difference in determining whether we have a restrictive clause or a non-restrictive clause.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
What I find awkward is the use of 'and' between the two non-restrictive clauses. Personally, I always try to avoid multiple subordinate clauses for a couple of reasons, not the least being the ambiguity of whether the second clause modifies the independent clause or modifies the first subordinate clause. Let's assume that both clauses apply to the independent clause and adjust the construction to match. We can do that combining the two non-restrictive clauses into one clause by removing the second 'who'.
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff, who represent our organization every day and make the donation experience unique and enriching.
At this point, I'm going to jump back into the restrictive vs non-restrictive debate because I think this sentence provides an outstanding example of the difference between the two and how that difference affects the semantics of a sentence.
Now let's look at the sentence without the comma thus making the clause restrictive:
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff who represent our organization every day and make the donation experience unique and enriching.
By removing the comma, we make the clause restrictive and that means we have two kinds of front-line staff. We have those that DO represent the company and make the donation experience unique and enriching, and we have those that DO NOT represent the company and so forth. Only the front-line staff that DO represent the company and make the experience enriching are being honored. That's the restriction.
Conversely, if we include the comma, thus making the clause non-restrictive, we have this:
XYZ Company is pleased to recognize and honor our front-line staff, who represent our organization every day and make the donation experience unique and enriching.
The comma makes the clause non-restrictive and that means there is no restriction on the front-line staff being honored. All the front-line staff represent the organization, and all are being honored. There are no restrictions on the staff being honored.
That comma makes a big difference in determining whether we have a restrictive clause or a non-restrictive clause.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
SantaMufasa
Technical User
Excellent analysis and presentation, CC...edifying and enriching ! Havanuther
(unless the "5-is-enuf"-rule comes into play <grin>).
Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
Annihilannic
MIS
I think this particular forum must have the highest stars-per-thread ratio I've seen around here!
Annihilannic.
Annihilannic.
dixiematic
Technical User
The question of correct punctuation recently rose my attention because my wife learns English and I was not able to help her explaining rules of the use of comma in this language.Few days ago I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with my friend who is a teacher of English and Italian (retired already), an Englishman by birth, and he maintained that few people in England could use punctuation correctly- mostly they will not use it at all. So I am really thankfull to CajunCenturion for his concise explanation how and why to use commas in a clause. Surprisingly he puts commas exactly on the same place as I would do in my own language and with the same explanation why so. As this explanation contributes a significant piece to my knowlidge I am giving him a star.
m777182
m777182
SantaMufasa
Technical User
Dixiematic,
<off topic>
Your screen name would imply that you are located somewhere near Georgia in the U.S.A., but from your sentence construction (excellent, BTW), I infer that you are closer to the other Georgia, in Eastern Europe. Am I correct? If so, what made you chose your clever (American-style) screen name?
</off topic>
Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
<off topic>
Your screen name would imply that you are located somewhere near Georgia in the U.S.A., but from your sentence construction (excellent, BTW), I infer that you are closer to the other Georgia, in Eastern Europe. Am I correct? If so, what made you chose your clever (American-style) screen name?
</off topic>
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
“Beware of those that seek to protect you from harm or risk. The cost will be your freedoms and your liberty.”
dixiematic
Technical User
santaMusafa,
(off topic)
I am not from the USA Georgia nor Eastern Europe Georgia. My screen name is my nickname that reflects my personal deviation. I got it at my brass band where I play for hobby: whatever I started playing turned out to be very much dixieland. In engineering words, dixieland is my global stability domain in the sense of Lyapunov theorem. By analogy to "automatic" dixiematic fits me well because my name is Matic, a version of Mathew or Mathias. My country is so small that even the former president Bush could not remember its name when he visited us and wanted to adress people....
Try to guess where I live!
M777182
(off topic)
I am not from the USA Georgia nor Eastern Europe Georgia. My screen name is my nickname that reflects my personal deviation. I got it at my brass band where I play for hobby: whatever I started playing turned out to be very much dixieland. In engineering words, dixieland is my global stability domain in the sense of Lyapunov theorem. By analogy to "automatic" dixiematic fits me well because my name is Matic, a version of Mathew or Mathias. My country is so small that even the former president Bush could not remember its name when he visited us and wanted to adress people....
Try to guess where I live!
M777182
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- News