posted
Like many others, I hate commas but can't seem to stop using them, what gets me most are the introductory phrases and oppositives.
I was sitting down to edit my wife's short story, a children's story written for an adult (her adopted father). I kept running into places where I thought "well, the rule says that should have a comma, but it just looks so clunky and ugly with it."
So I had this thought, what if we only applied the rules "when confusing:" I mean isn't that the whole point of any punctuation to parse thoughts so we don't run them together? The rules just exist for the case "well, I think this might be confusing, but I'm not sure how to fix it..."
Maybe that's obvious to others, but I'm always struggling to keep my commas corralled. Of course you do have to be able to "see" the confusion in your own writing so an awareness of the rules is still very necessary and re-reading after the work has been dead, but...
posted
I see many people using commas when there is no need, like preceding every "and" or "but". Many writers do not use commas after dependent clauses even though, technically, it is a rule. Cormac McCarthy uses very little punctuation and his stories are very readable. I'm not advocating McCarthy's approach, but there is some validity to it. For me, punctuation is more like road signs, telling the reader when to yield, stop, or go a certain way. They do not bother me unless they are used incorrectly.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Commas totally confound me, though I'm much better than I used to be!
But I always notice commas during a certain eye-opening writing exercise. The exercise is to choose a favorite scene from a favorite book, and copy it down word for word. Even though it's not creative, it's supposed to help you "absorb" different sentence structures and word usage, to not just read someone else's work but to help train your brain from getting into a certain stylistic rut.
Every time I do this exercise, I notice that my favorite authors have wildly different comma usage than I do. Sentences that I would have sprinkled commas into like jimmies on a sundae, they have no commas at all but still make perfect sense! It baffles me every time.
posted
The only "rule" I follow is in sentences like this:
<<John ran down the court and scored.>>
I didn't use a comma because John ran down the court. He also scored. John did both actions, and if you put his name at the beginning of each part of the sentence, it works.
But in this sentence:
<<John ran down the court, and Bill scored.>>
John does one action, but Bill does another. This is when I use a comma just like I did with "but" in my last sentence.
I also use commas when a character is doing three or more actions in a row. Such as:
<<Mary pulled on her coat, picked up her purse, and headed for the door.>>
Without the commas, much of this wouldn't make much sense just like this sentence I'm typing now. But if you turn it around:
<<Muchs of this wouldn't make sense without commas.>>
You don't need the comma. I usually try to stay away from sentences starting with prepositions anyway because it feels clunky. About the only time I do is in dialog to stay in character or when typing out posts .
posted
I am going to copy and edit something from a previous post (one of mine). In most of the sentences, the commas are placed as examples of what is being explained. Hopefully, it will be helpful.
quote:There are very definite rules for punctuation, which often can be ignored in literature at the discretion of the writer. Traditionally, when one begins a sentence with a three or more syllable adverbial conjunction, like traditionally, it requires a comma. This rule is usually followed in literature. When a sentence begins with a dependent clause like this one does, it is also supposed to have a comma. However, I often see sentences beginning with adverbs or prepositions, such as if, when, as, in, etc., that do not have commas.
A compound sentence separated by a conjuction is supposed to have a comma, unless the second independent clause is very closely related to the first. Semicolons serve a similar function; a writer can continue a thought without requiring a conjuction or comma. Contradictory independent clauses are the exception, such as in the first sentence in this paragraph. Examples set apart from the rest of the sentence are supposed to have a comma.
Hatrackers, greetings and interjections should have a comma. Three or more items, descriptions or thoughts listed consecutively also require commas, except for the one before and or or, which is optional. The exception to this rule is when the items, descriptions, or thoughts are set within a series of long clauses or have commas, which requires semicolons.
As you know, commas also separate quotations. Then there are the rules about city, states and the like.
The last reason for a comma is what I will simply call a descriptive phrase, which is not the real name, but it covers several scenarios like this sentence. Breaks in a sentence, which refer to the previous clause or phrase, require commas to separate it.
I think that about covers it. The only other thing I can think of is when a semicolon separates two independent clauses with an adverbial conjunction like however, furthermore, etc.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited February 08, 2011).]
posted
I argue against the "discretionary" comma before the and/or. I heard a story about a will that stated the estate should be equally divided between James, Julia and Bob. James argued that he gets half of the estate and Julia and Bob get the other half. Without the comma, the items on either side of the conjunction are considered the same item.
I believe there was an experiment with the option of having a comma or not, but I think it failed, unless you want to make a pair of items a single item. I'm loath to lose anything that adds to the precision of the language. Heck, experiments like this are what lost us "ain't."
posted
I'm glad I'm not the only one with issues with commas. Like Pyre, I definitely prefer to hold on to precision. Without precision, we're like painters with only three colors.
But at the same time, the most precise writing can also be precisely unworthy of reading. I guess the real standard is do you use the tools (commas or otherwise) effectively to communicate what you mean or do you just show off that you have the tools or that you don't have the tools. Do I notice the garage or the running motor?
posted
Here is what Wikipedia states about the Serial Comma.
Here is a good site that addresses general Comma Rules. It seems I forgot Coordinate Adjectives (two equally important adjectives placed consecutively, which most of the time I feel are unnecessary), but they do support Pyre's objection to omitting serial commas.
The most common mistake I see with commas is placing a comma in the middle of a sentence, before and or but, and the sentence isn't even a compound sentence. The example Crystal gave was like this, but I would go further. Both parts of the sentence need to be able to stand on their own, without being too closely related, to deserve a comma.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited February 08, 2011).]
quote:In addition to grammatical rules, I think commas tell the reader when to breathe as if the story was spoken aloud. They have become transparent for me unless, of, course they, are improperly, placed.
The only rule I follow for commas is when I would pause if telling the story aloud. I am horrible with understanding the rules for punctuation. However, I read a great book called "If you can talk, you can write." So I tend to write as if I was speaking it and the hell will the rules.
Of course then my wife looks at it and fixes my egregious grammatical errors.
posted
That's actually why I use the comma splice -- I consider the comma a natural pause button, and the semicolon a near-halt, and use them accordingly. If that conflicts with the Rules, so be it. I know the Rules intimately, yeah. But sometimes the Rules make for poor readability, such as the one about setting off certain constructions with commas. So you wind up with "Blah blah PAUSE and PAUSE blah blah. Blah blah PAUSE but PAUSE blah blah" when you really wanted it to rip right along.
It's about controlling pacing for the reader, not how many red marks your grammar teacher will give you.
posted
If a semicolon doesn't separate independent clauses, it signifies to me that a writer has not mastered his basic tools. I am not a huge fan of them in the first place; however, sometimes they are necessary.
Commas are a little more difficult. I don't use them before "and," but I use them before "but."
Does my previous sentence incorrectly use a comma before "but"? It seems correct.
Now I realize what philo meant- commas before but when it is not 2 independent clauses.
Everyone got it the first time but me.
[This message has been edited by Wordcaster (edited February 09, 2011).]
posted
The comma before "and" in a compound sentence is not always necessary, especially when the two clauses are closely related, but it is useful to break up two particularly long clauses or two clauses that are more indirectly related.
The comma before "but" should be used in a compound sentence, because the word "but" necessarily contradicts the previous statement in some way. A comma can also precede "but" if the second clause is dependent (no subject) if there is strong contradiction.
posted
The rules for punctuation are not really that difficult - there are many rules, but they follow very general principles, like the rules for spelling. Personally, I feel a writer should learn the tools of the trade if he/she plans on ever being considered professional. Learning how to spell or use correct grammatical constructions is equally important. Knowledge and use are different entities - McCarthy chooses not to use certain types of punctuation, Mark Twain (Clemens) chose to use colloquial grammar constructions, and others have chosen to use incorrect spellings, but the difference is that these people have proven that they could also do these things correctly. Picasso didn't start out with cubism, even though that was what made him famous.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited February 10, 2011).]
quote: a semicolon doesn't separate independent clauses, it signifies to me that a writer has not mastered his basic tools. I am not a huge fan of them in the first place; however, sometimes they are necessary.
I avoid the semicolon now too. For the most part I find I don't need them. But your right they are sometimes needed.
quote:The rules for punctuation are not really that difficult - there are many rules, but they follow very general principles, like the rules of spelling.
I disagree. The rules for punctuation, grammar, and spelling in the English language are complex. I consider myself a decent (if not good) writer, but I do have difficulties with punctuation rules. It is nothing I have not been able to overcome, but the difficulty remains.
My point is that just because you may have struggles with punctuation rules, grammar rules, or even spelling does not mean you can not become a good writer. I think any truly great artist (or person) recognizes his/her weakness and limitations and overcomes those.
posted
Since you bring up McCarthy- he doesn't like/use semicolons either. Reason enough to read his writing. Posts: 475 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was that the rules for spelling and grammar are much more complex than the rules for punctuation, and yet as writers, we are expected to demonstrate some mastery of these first two skills.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.
