• Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work

How do you spot introductory commas?

Status
Not open for further replies.

maxitoutwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
5
I'm on a quest to master the comma once and for all. However, I oftentimes miss introductory phrases.

Any hints/tips for mastering the introductory comma?
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
The way I was taught was: the introductory element can usually be shifted around.

After the boy saw the girl, he ran away.
The boy ran away after he saw a girl.

So it gets a comma in the first example because it's shifted from its usual position at the end. (or 'Because it's shifted from it's usual position, it gets a comma in the first example)

Common introductory phrases start with:

1 prepositions: in the beginning, after she made it home, before...
2 -ing participals: walking down the street, skipping, shifting...

Some style manuals see the comma as optional in intro phrases if there's less than two words, but style differs.
 
Last edited:

TheWordsmith

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
366
Reaction score
38
Location
State of Confusion
In the simplest form, look for dependant clauses. That is, can it stand alone as a complete sentence or is it dependant upon the rest of the sentence to make sense.

Now, obviously, there are exceptions. Two of which you see here. "That is", technically, is a complete sentence. It has a subject and a verb. The proviso here is that we really don't know what "that" is unless we take in the rest of the sentence. The second instance is the interjection. Not like an "OH!" or "Alas" that you might see or hear. This is more of a construction matter. "Obviously" is not part of the body of the sentence and would not make any sense just hanging out there by itself. It is solely dependant upon some other comment to support it.
"That VW is not big enough for all six of us," he says as the group tries to squeeze into the little Jetta.
She favors him with a withering glance and says, "Obviously."
Obviously what? Obviously, the Jetta is not big enough to hold six people. Her comment is a complete (though contracted) statement but we would have no idea what she was talking about without his previous comment.

Now, as to that 'introductory comma' you wondered about.

When you find a dependant clause at the opening of a sentence or, if you find the beginning and the end go together but there is a dependant clause dividing the main sentence, that is where you are going to find your commas.

Now, another conundrum you may encounter is the compound sentence. Something like, "Instead of brussels sprouts, which Kaylie declared she hated, Mom cooked broccoli." [Note that the inclusion of the word "which" makes the dependant clause dependant upon the main sentence, "Mom cooked broccoli." Ahead of all of that, however, is the clarifier, "Instead of brussels sprouts," (also a dependant clause).

Totally confused yet? I'll try to simplify. If it can't stand alone, it's going to need a comma.
 

maxitoutwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
5
Thanks guys, I figured out another trick to it while studying earlier.

My comma usage improved almost instantly because I took a couple quizzes and did way better.

Pretty helpful, so I figure I will share it for anyone who struggles with commas like myself.


Here's the test: Always use a comma if you can take that clause/phrase out and the sentence still makes sense.

E.g.

Walking back from the store Timmy had bought a machine gun and two machetes.

If you can take out the first part and it still makes sense, then you need a comma there.

Timmy had bought a machine gun and two machetes.

It makes sense, so you need a comma between store and Timmy.
 

Kimmy84

Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Location
Sydney, Australia
Website
kimtaylorauthor.blogspot.com.au
I will die a slow painful death due to the use and misuse of the humble comma. I loathe them and generally my daily editing involves removing about 100 of them that I really didnt need to put in in the first place! To add a question to this post, does anyone know a good reference for the rules of commas?
 

maxitoutwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
5
I will die a slow painful death due to the use and misuse of the humble comma. I loathe them and generally my daily editing involves removing about 100 of them that I really didnt need to put in in the first place! To add a question to this post, does anyone know a good reference for the rules of commas?

Haha, I have the exact same problem. We should start a comma trauma support group. :)

That is why I'm studying them like a madman (two hours a day, every day) until I have fully beaten the mischievous little devils to a pulp. Sitting idly by hoping to understand them is never going to work.

What I have heard some writers tell me is to study just ONE rule at a time, until you fully understand it. That is why this thread is focused on just introductory commas.

What I do for studying rules is I exhaust everything on the rule. I go all-out when I study a rule.

For example, not only have I written posts on this forum(Among other writing forums), I have went down the list of resources on Google(All the way to page 3), I have watched tons of videos on Youtube about the topic AND when it is all said and done, I take a quiz at the end of each study.

If I learned just one new thing about the rule, then it was time well spent because it means I improved.

I'll elaborate further later, I have to go somewhere.
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
The way I was taught was: the introductory element can usually be shifted around.

After the boy saw the girl, he ran away.
The boy ran away after he saw a girl.

So it gets a comma in the first example because it's shifted from its usual position at the end. (or 'Because it's shifted from it's usual position, it gets a comma in the first example)

Common introductory phrases start with:

1 prepositions: in the beginning, after she made it home, before...
2 -ing participals: walking down the street, skipping, shifting...

Some style manuals see the comma as optional in intro phrases if there's less than two words, but style differs.
What's a "participal"? Is that something like, when in school, where a bad boy or bad girl gets sent to? :D
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
In the simplest form, look for dependant clauses. That is, can it stand alone as a complete sentence or is it dependant upon the rest of the sentence to make sense.

Now, obviously, there are exceptions. Two of which you see here. "That is", technically, is a complete sentence. It has a subject and a verb. The proviso here is that we really don't know what "that" is unless we take in the rest of the sentence. The second instance is the interjection. Not like an "OH!" or "Alas" that you might see or hear. This is more of a construction matter. "Obviously" is not part of the body of the sentence and would not make any sense just hanging out there by itself. It is solely dependant upon some other comment to support it.
"That VW is not big enough for all six of us," he says as the group tries to squeeze into the little Jetta.
She favors him with a withering glance and says, "Obviously."
Obviously what? Obviously, the Jetta is not big enough to hold six people. Her comment is a complete (though contracted) statement but we would have no idea what she was talking about without his previous comment.

Now, as to that 'introductory comma' you wondered about.

When you find a dependant clause at the opening of a sentence or, if you find the beginning and the end go together but there is a dependant clause dividing the main sentence, that is where you are going to find your commas.

Now, another conundrum you may encounter is the compound sentence. Something like, "Instead of brussels sprouts, which Kaylie declared she hated, Mom cooked broccoli." [Note that the inclusion of the word "which" makes the dependant clause dependant upon the main sentence, "Mom cooked broccoli." Ahead of all of that, however, is the clarifier, "Instead of brussels sprouts," (also a dependant clause).

Totally confused yet? I'll try to simplify. If it can't stand alone, it's going to need a comma.
I'm confused. :D
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
Thanks guys, I figured out another trick to it while studying earlier.

My comma usage improved almost instantly because I took a couple quizzes and did way better.

Pretty helpful, so I figure I will share it for anyone who struggles with commas like myself.

Here's the test: Always use a comma if you can take that clause/phrase out and the sentence still makes sense.
E.g.
Walking back from the store Timmy had bought a machine gun and two machetes.
If you can take out the first part and it still makes sense, then you need a comma there.
Timmy had bought a machine gun and two machetes.
It makes sense, so you need a comma between store and Timmy.
Haha, I have the exact same problem. We should start a comma trauma support group. :)

That is why I'm studying them like a madman (two hours a day, every day) until I have fully beaten the mischievous little devils to a pulp. Sitting idly by hoping to understand them is never going to work.

What I have heard some writers tell me is to study just ONE rule at a time, until you fully understand it. That is why this thread is focused on just introductory commas.

What I do for studying rules is I exhaust everything on the rule. I go all-out when I study a rule.

For example, not only have I written posts on this forum(Among other writing forums), I have went down the list of resources on Google(All the way to page 3), I have watched tons of videos on Youtube about the topic AND when it is all said and done, I take a quiz at the end of each study.

If I learned just one new thing about the rule, then it was time well spent because it means I improved.

I'll elaborate further later, I have to go somewhere.
What comma quizzes? And where are they to be found, if someone wanted to find them?

Two hours per day studying, just on commas?! How many days has it been? :D

Where are these "rules" to be found?

Er, where is everybody????? (Is everyone making popcorn?)
 
Last edited:

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
Hey, can we start talking about passive voice? :D

Where's Bufty? :)

Okay, okay, I'll go back and do some editing ...
 
Last edited:

maxitoutwriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
5
What comma quizzes? And where are they to be found, if someone wanted to find them?

Google 'comma quiz,' they're easy to find.

Two hours per day studying, just on commas?! How many days has it been? :D

It's been three days so far, and yeah, I'm only studying commas. My goal is to fully understand commas, and then move onto another area of my writing and improve.

Where are these "rules" to be found?

This can get you started in learning the rules, but I would study each individual rule from a variety of different sources. It is easier to find it explained in terms that are understandable when you study from different sources. Sooner or later, someone says something that clicks in your head.

Comma rules:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
Er, yeah. Those comma sources, well ... :D

Hey, is there supposed to be a comma in the below example sentence?
  • It was Sue who the cops were questioning in the parking lot.
If not, why not?

Is that a relative clause in the above example? And if so, would it be considered to be non-restrictive? And aren't there supposed to be a comma before a non-restrictive relative clause? What do those comma sources say? :)

Should that "who" in the above example actually be a "whom"?
 

Torill

Not as trollish as you might think
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
825
Reaction score
239
Location
Oslo, Norway
It's restrictive. Take it out and the crucial information of that sentence is lost: It was Sue in the parking lot.

Also, it's a bad sentence. Rewrite it to be active instead of passive, with the cops as the subject, and you're rid of the whole problem. ;)
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
It's restrictive. Take it out and the crucial information of that sentence is lost: It was Sue in the parking lot.

Also, it's a bad sentence. Rewrite it to be active instead of passive, with the cops as the subject, and you're rid of the whole problem. ;)
But how can it be restrictive? ... There is only one "Sue".
.
.
So you don't like passive? Then how about this example:
  • It was Sue who chased the cops away.


(And I think that my previous example was a fine sentence. Especially since I was the one that thought it up. :D )

Procrastination, procrastination ...
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
Hey, we successfully made this thread, which had started out as a thread on commas, into a thread on passives. :D

Where's Bufty? Where's Fallen? Bring out the wine!
 

Torill

Not as trollish as you might think
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
825
Reaction score
239
Location
Oslo, Norway
Procrastination, procrastination ...
Tell me about it. So here's me procrastinating some more:

Quoting my source linked to above:
Basically, a restrictive relative clause contains information that's essential to the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
And:
If you aren't sure whether you've used a pair of commas correctly, try replacing them with brackets or removing the information enclosed by the commas altogether, and then see if the sentence is still understandable, or if it still conveys the meaning you intended.
(Italics mine)

So - if you remove 'who the cops were questioning' from your (lovely passive :e2flowers) example sentence, the sentence is not rendered gibberish - but it has been changed to mean something else than the original sentence.

It doesn't matter if we have one or two Sues around - what matters is whether the information about Sue in the relative clause is essential to the overall meaning of the sentence. In your example the information about the cops is essential - it's the whole point of the sentence.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Bufty opens door, pokes head in and glances quickly down a baffling thread from someone with too much time on their hands about introducing commas to each other or something then quietly backs out, closes door, and tiptoes away down the corridor. :snoopy:
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
It doesn't matter if we have one or two Sues around - what matters is whether the information about Sue in the relative clause is essential to the overall meaning of the sentence. In your example the information about the cops is essential - it's the whole point of the sentence.
Not necessarily. :) ... It was interesting that the page there in your grammar source didn't mention that they consider a "restrictive relative clause" as one where the relative clause "restricts" the meaning of the previous "noun"--which was the definition that I was expecting. And so, I went to see how they define a "restrictive relative clause". And on page
Oxford Dictionary: Clauses: (bolding mine)
A restrictive relative clause (also known as a defining relative clause) gives essential information about a noun that comes before it: without this clause the sentence wouldn’t make much sense.​
And so, by that definition, which is ("closer" to) the usual meaning for that term "restrictive relative clause", my last two examples would not be considered to be restrictive relative clauses. That is, the relative clause in my examples is not used to define the subset of "Sue's" that the sentence is talking about.

Though, the description on the first page that you referenced is actually a more useful description, but it's actually a description of "integrated relative clause". I am kinda suspecting that the editor(s) who had edited that first page was trying to somehow merge in the more modern meaning of "integrated relative clause", but was trying to do it without actually having to change the formal name of the term "restrictive relative clause" itself.
.
.
Hey, does your Oxford Dictionaries say anything about it-clefts? :)
 
Last edited:

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Bufty opens door, pokes head in and glances quickly down a baffling thread from someone with too much time on their hands about introducing commas to each other or something then quietly backs out, closes door, and tiptoes away down the corridor. :snoopy:

I thought it was going to be an introductory comma-offer, you know, buy one comma, get two free.

I'm quite disappointed.
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
Like, the typical meaning of "restrictive relative clause" often uses examples like the below:
1. The teacher scolded the boys who had behaved badly. [restrictive relative clause]
2. The teacher scolded the boys, who had behaved badly. [non-restrictive relative clause]​
In #1, the teacher scolded only the boys that had behaved badly; she left alone the boys who had behaved properly. In #2, the teacher scolded all the boys; all the boys had behaved poorly, and none had behaved properly.

But it seems that Oxford Dictionaries is, er, trying to expand their definition of "restrictive relative clause" so that it is becoming somewhat cloudy, and could, maybe, possibly be confused as being somewhat the same as the term "integrated relative clause". imo. :)

(It is way, way late for me; past the wee hours of the morning.)
 

Rusted

Registered
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
amongst my neurosis
Just wanted to put my two cents in - although this thread seems to have derailed somewhat.

You might try looking for subordinate conjunctions (which join a dependent and independent clause, what TheWordsmith was talking about) and shift the dependent clause to the beginning of the sentence so the subordinate conjunction comes first. So:

I'm going to mop the floor after washing the dishes.

becomes

After washing the dishes, I'm going to mop the floor.


And that's all I have to say about that.

I'm not going to jump into the passive voice debate, nor the restrictive relative clauses.

I am, however, going to link a funny little cartoon about oxford commas, because it might be relevant:

http://thegloss.com/beauty/why-the-oxford-comma-is-something-you-should-care-about-392/

Aaaaand just for the sake of a balanced argument, I'm going to link another little cartoon debunking the cartoon above.

http://languagehippie.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/on-pedantry-ambiguity-and-oxford-comma.html

I could have linked just one, I know, but I think it's clearer the way I did it. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.