Commas for Pauses vs Commas for Grammatical Correctness
- Thread starter paperwinged
- Start date
I see now that I 100% asked for this to be a "Roast my grammar!" thread. No sarcasm intended. That is effectively what I've done.I'm not mad. Carry on. Can you tell I'm new to forums?
Hence
This has very little to do with commas but. . . While I agree you can't "err on the side of precision," simply since precision implies lack of error, I do have an issue with the above definition of precision. What you're describing is consistency, not precision. If I go to a range and fire the same gun ten times at the same target, and miss what I'm aiming at all ten times, there is no universe in which I am precise. Consistent, yes, but precise, no. That close a grouping suggests the gun is incredibly precise, the shooter decidedly not.
*assuming of course we're not going to blame the gun. The sights could always be off, I guess. Plausible deniability at least. I know if I missed a target ten times in public, I'd blame the gun.
Last edited:
Standard grammatical uses of the comma pretty much automatically produce a minor pause in the reading of prose, especially when read aloud. If the writer desires a pause, for emphasis or whatever, to occur at some other place, an ellipsis is probably a good choice for such punctuation.
caw
caw
This has very little to do with commas but. . . While I agree you can't "err on the side of precision," simply since precision implies lack of error, I do have an issue with the above definition of precision. What you're describing is consistency, not precision. If I go to a range and fire the same gun ten times at the same target, and miss what I'm aiming at all ten times, there is no universe in which I am precise. Consistent, yes, but precise, no. That close a grouping suggests the gun is incredibly precise, the shooter decidedly not.
*assuming of course we're not going to blame the gun. The sights could always be off, I guess. Plausible deniability at least. I know if I missed a target ten times in public, I'd blame the gun.
After a foray into dictionary.com I discovered that I have been using only definitions 5 and 6 my whole life. :|
I'm not actually sure how I never knew that.
I wouldn't worry about it. Had to check the dictionary myself to make sure I wasn't the one applying a meaning that didn't fit, since an argument can be made that all demonstrations of precision do imply consistency, or at least the potential for consistency.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 8,582
- Reaction score
- 8,522
- Location
- The Seattle suburbs
- Website
- www.reneedominick.com
Long live the dictionary!
(I still maintain 2 hardback and one paperback copy at home, although nowadays my go-to while working is online. But damn, those thumb-shaped indentations on the Merriam-Webster are sexy.)
(I still maintain 2 hardback and one paperback copy at home, although nowadays my go-to while working is online. But damn, those thumb-shaped indentations on the Merriam-Webster are sexy.)
This thread reminds me that I need a new dictionary. If I was a gazillionaire I'd buy an online subscription to the OED. (It's a bit hard to curl up in bed with a physical copy of the OED - it might displace your partner.) As I'm not - I'm partial to the Concise Oxfords, but the Macquarie is another option. My main requirements are good etymologies and bolshie descriptivism. Also, IPA.
The first I heard about punctuation used to create a pause in the flow of a text was when I was writing my thesis; my girlfriend at the time knew everything about everything and so when she said, “forget about rules, just use punctuation when you need to create a pause; depending on the duration of the pause use a comma, a semicolon, a dash, or a period,” I thought I felt I had been initiated into the secrets of punctuation. Looking back, I see that she probably assumed that I knew grammar — things like a semicolon separates two independent clauses; a dash looks backward, and, of course, the half-dozen rules determining comma usage — I didn’t.
Now that I’m trying to write fiction for a public audience, I am sort of an agnostic about the issue raised in the title of this post: My gut feeling is to obey the rules of grammar regarding comma usage when I think the pause a comma creates sounds right to me; otherwise, I’m willing to omit it.
I’ve noticed that comma usage has been loosening up lately, even in that high-citadel of rigorous punctuation The New Yorker, at least as far as sentences beginning with adverbial phrases like “In the meantime, ...” go. New Yorker staff writers still keep to the book, but short story writers don’t. Neither did Henry James; I just finished part one of Portrait of A Lady; at first I was disconcerted by and then pleased at the master’s total disregard for this particular comma rule.
The danger ih leaving out commas where grammar books prescribe them is that one may be taken for a bumpkin — how can the reader know that a comma was intentionally omitted? That’s why I now violate a comma rule only if the sentence without the comma reads so much better than it would with it that only the most finicky reader would take offense.
Now that I’m trying to write fiction for a public audience, I am sort of an agnostic about the issue raised in the title of this post: My gut feeling is to obey the rules of grammar regarding comma usage when I think the pause a comma creates sounds right to me; otherwise, I’m willing to omit it.
I’ve noticed that comma usage has been loosening up lately, even in that high-citadel of rigorous punctuation The New Yorker, at least as far as sentences beginning with adverbial phrases like “In the meantime, ...” go. New Yorker staff writers still keep to the book, but short story writers don’t. Neither did Henry James; I just finished part one of Portrait of A Lady; at first I was disconcerted by and then pleased at the master’s total disregard for this particular comma rule.
The danger ih leaving out commas where grammar books prescribe them is that one may be taken for a bumpkin — how can the reader know that a comma was intentionally omitted? That’s why I now violate a comma rule only if the sentence without the comma reads so much better than it would with it that only the most finicky reader would take offense.
Last edited:
The first I heard about punctuation used to create a pause in the flow of a text was when I was writing my thesis; my girlfriend at the time knew everything about everything and so when she said, “forget about rules, just use punctuation when you need to create a pause; depending on the duration of the pause use a comma, a semicolon, a dash, or a period,” I thought I felt I had been initiated into the secrets of punctuation. Looking back, I see that she probably assumed that I knew grammar — things like a semicolon separates two independent clauses; a dash looks backward, and, of course, the half-dozen rules determining comma usage — I didn’t.
Now that I’m trying to write fiction for a public audience, I am sort of an agnostic about the issue raised in the title of this post: My gut feeling is to obey the rules of grammar regarding comma usage when I think the pause a comma creates sounds right to me; otherwise, I’m willing to omit it.
I’ve noticed that comma usage has been loosening up lately, even in that high-citadel of rigorous punctuation The New Yorker, at least as far as sentences beginning with adverbial phrases like “In the meantime, ...” go. New Yorker staff writers still keep to the book, but short story writers don’t. Neither did Henry James; I just finished part one of Portrait of A Lady; at first I was disconcerted by and then pleased at the master’s total disregard for this particular comma rule.
The danger ih leaving out commas where grammar books prescribe them is that one may be taken for a bumpkin — how can the reader know that a comma was intentionally omitted? That’s why I now violate a comma rule only if the sentence without the comma reads so much better than it would with it that only the most finicky reader would take offense.
Now that I’m trying to write fiction for a public audience, I am sort of an agnostic about the issue raised in the title of this post: My gut feeling is to obey the rules of grammar regarding comma usage when I think the pause a comma creates sounds right to me; otherwise, I’m willing to omit it.
I’ve noticed that comma usage has been loosening up lately, even in that high-citadel of rigorous punctuation The New Yorker, at least as far as sentences beginning with adverbial phrases like “In the meantime, ...” go. New Yorker staff writers still keep to the book, but short story writers don’t. Neither did Henry James; I just finished part one of Portrait of A Lady; at first I was disconcerted by and then pleased at the master’s total disregard for this particular comma rule.
The danger ih leaving out commas where grammar books prescribe them is that one may be taken for a bumpkin — how can the reader know that a comma was intentionally omitted? That’s why I now violate a comma rule only if the sentence without the comma reads so much better than it would with it that only the most finicky reader would take offense.
I love reading these threads because I learn so much. Yet I still don’t know what bolshie descriptivism is, even after looking in the dictionary.
On the plus side, at least I now know you’re not talking about beer.
On the plus side, at least I now know you’re not talking about beer.
Y'know how people complain when the dictionary makes a poop emoji or something their 'word of the year'? I like that. The dictionary should represent real use of language, rules, decorum and taste be damned. That's descriptive linguistics. 'Bolshie' is a fun adjective meaning 'obstinately radical in the manner of the Bolsheviks'.I love reading these threads because I learn so much. Yet I still don’t know what bolshie descriptivism is, even after looking in the dictionary.
On the plus side, at least I now know you’re not talking about beer.
In any case, I can't see a good excuse for any writer not knowing the standard grammatical rules for the use of the comma, or any other punctuation symbol. Deciding to do something irregular, for effect or experimentation, is a different animal than misuse of something out of ignorance.
caw
caw
I generally try to stick to the rules of grammar, but sometimes I feel ornery and omit a comma because I think the pause it creates just doesn’t feel right. In the past, when I did this with sentences beginning with adverbial clauses (I know I haven’t done that in this sentence) I often had pangs of conscious. But now I see authors of short stories in the New Yorker doing the same thing and getting away with it. The staff writers, though, still stick scrupulously to the rules. Interestingly that’s not the case in another paragon of correct English punctuation, the New York Review of Books; there it seems that omitting the comma after an opening adverbial clause is standard procedure.
My impression is that grammar-wise the rules are loosening up and that has implications for writers of fiction: It they ignore this, their writing is going to look uncool and who wants that.
Last edited:
Re the section I highlighted in your post, the presence of a comma does not of itself create an automatic pause.
When reading aloud, the decision to pause at any particular point is created by the reader, whose correct understanding of the intended meaning of what he is reading in any given sentence is influenced by the punctuation of that sentence.
Correctly understanding the meaning of a sentence could mean not pausing at all at a comma.
To pause at every comma can make nonsense of reading aloud.
I'd prefer my writing be understood than appear cool.
And a very, very belated welcome from me, and Snoopy
, who thinks you mean pangs of 'conscience'.
When reading aloud, the decision to pause at any particular point is created by the reader, whose correct understanding of the intended meaning of what he is reading in any given sentence is influenced by the punctuation of that sentence.
Correctly understanding the meaning of a sentence could mean not pausing at all at a comma.
To pause at every comma can make nonsense of reading aloud.
I'd prefer my writing be understood than appear cool.
And a very, very belated welcome from me, and Snoopy
, who thinks you mean pangs of 'conscience'.
Last edited:
Non comprende, amigo,
When you read a text your brain is constantly at work creating meaning from the chaotic flow of information it receives from the optic nerves. Just classifying a comma as a punctuation symbol rather than a letter results in a brief interruption between words. Once the comma is recognized as such, the brain then remembers that it results in a verbal pause and automatically creates the mental equivalent of this. I don't think there can be the slightest doubt that commas create pauses — involuntary pauses. In calling this into question you are making the whole discussion redundant: If pigs can't fly then why require them to have pilot's licenses?
The text you put in boldface was not the self-referencing example I referred to: it was “In the past, when I did this with sentences beginning with adverbial clauses (I know I haven’t done that in this sentence) I often had pangs of conscience (spelling mistake corrected here)." My purpose was pointing out that, although I sometimes prefer to omit a comma after an adverbial phrase at the beginning of sentence, there a cases when, to me, a sentence wouldn't sound right if such a comma had been left out.
Major authors break the rules “governing” the use of commas with impunity whenever and wherever they choose and yet no one finds this hinders their ability to understand the prose of these writers. Deviating from universally accepted rules of punctuation is another matter, though. It's just as important to avoid blanket indictments as to say anything goes.
Last edited:
I mean that correct punctuation enables a reader to understand what he is reading and therefore empowers him, when reading aloud, to place emphasis and pauses (of whatever length he chooses) where he feels they are needed so the listener can also understand. That neither means a pause is made every time a comma is encountered nor that no commas mean no pauses.
Last edited:
I agree with everything, especially if we take heed of your second piece of advice below and replace all capital letters for emphasis in ever with italics.
. If more writers understood the reasoning, it would tend to keep lots of careful readers reading otherwise worthwhile books.Most detailed submission guidelines advise to stay away from boldface in manuscripts. Not so much on the subject of inflection in dialog but for inserting pauses . . . ellipsis points do a good job to show hesitation in creative writing. For those who think ellipses should be reserved for missing words in quoted material, there's always dashes.
Certainly "no one" isn't universally true. Many careful readers I know of choose not to reader further any works of those who "use . . . commas with impunity whenever and wherever they choose." I may understand their prose, but when it requires re-reading due to poor punctuation, I usually pass.
skyhawk0
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 1
As soon as someone says they know the rules of English, they're bound to embarrass themselves. English has conventions, not rules. Those who are overly prescriptive become unreadable, unless of course they break their own supposed 'rules'.
That, I would consider incorrect usage. You wouldn't write "I notice, and I find it distracting", would you? Do you not find it distracting when you notice such things, only later? Doesn't the initial clause there apply to both verbs?
Many people seem to have picked up this habit of using a comma to separate a list of only two actions, likely because they feel it's convenient and aren't trusting their writing (or the reader) to understand these are two separate actions.
You do the same again here. You wouldn't write "Do you think commas are cute, and friendly-looking?" You wouldn't use a comma before 'and' unless there was a list of at least three things (and that if the Oxford comma is in play).
Also in that quote, you have a comma after "Or". How does a comma fit after one coordinating conjunction but before another?
Some serious irony there. What's the reason for the comma after 'omitted'?
I get it. I see it done all the time. You have "1 and 2" where 1 is "A or B" and you want to avoid "A or B and 2" (even sticker if it were 'and' rather than 'or'). Which makes sense, as "thrown in or omitted and there" by itself seems confusing, but look at the entire sentence without that superfluous comma and you can understand it plainly. It comes down to a lack of trust that it'll be read right. In more complicated situations, it's better to revisit the sentence if confusion is a potential issue.
People learn in different ways and many people learned terms and rules, which they then apply blindly. Consider that thinking yourself correct is the road to ruin. English is not simple or straightforward or by-the-numbers.
Prescriptive grammar does not work. Meaning is essential and you need to understand that to apply grammar. "Understanding grammar" is a sign you're ignoring meaning in favour of thinking that a convention or mnemonic you learned overrules it. Grammar serves meaning. It cannot be intelligently dictated onto a sentence without the consideration of meaning guiding it.
The reason for most every comma is likely there in those published books you mention. The conventions of the book are established within the book and held to. You can't blindly apply some 'rule' your third-grade teacher told you or you found on a webpage as if it must be the case. If you aren't seeing the reason, perhaps you aren't looking hard enough. I can tell you that editors and writers have long discussions about this or that comma, with the results then applied as a standard. There will be outlier examples and there will be sloppy books, of course, but if you're seeing this a lot, do consider that the issue might be you and your approach.
Last edited: