Commas and Apostrophes, OH My!

You might want to read some of the OWLS (Online Writing Lessons), or other online grammar guides first, and then post any questions you might have. There are a number of these online; this is one, but you can find others just by searching for "grammar":

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/cnt_punc.asp

I have several books on grammar but one of the handiest is Esssential English Grammar. It cost about $6.

Hope you read the suggested link and books, SeeEmily.

Overuse of commas can make a sentence very hard to read, so if in doubt leave them out or reword/shorten your sentences so that they make sense.

A comma basically says - if you don't take a little breath here, the sentence will sound odd.

SeeEmilywrite said:

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Apostrophes are used for:

1) Missing letters/contractions e.g. can´t (cannot)

2) Apostrophes before or after the possessive -s ending of nouns e.g. the girl´s father, Charles´s wife, Socrates´ ideas

Possessive determiners and pronouns do not have apostrophes e.g. Has the cat had its food yet? or This is yours

3) Special plurals

(a) words that don´t normally have plurals sometimes have a plural form when written as a plural e.g. It´s a nice idea, but there are lots of if´s

(b)Often used in pluralisation of letters and numbers e.g. b´s and d´s It was in the 1960´s (or 1960s) and I know two MP´s (or MPs)

It´s incorrect to use an apostrophe in a normal plural e.g. jeans

Hope that helped

Is there any type or form of text where using apostrophes would be inappropriate from any reason? A booklet with technical instructions or a scientific medical article...?

Ultrasound. Why it's (it is) used?
This man can't (cannot, can not) walk.
He's had (has had) fever for a week.
Patient's laboratory results has not changed.

Do apostrophes make (health) articles hard to read?

boron said:

Is there any type or form of text where using apostrophes would be inapropriate from any reason? A booklet with technical instructions or a scientific medical article...?

1. Ultrasound. Why it's (it is) used?
2. This man can't (cannot, can not) walk.
3. He's had (has had) fever for a week.
4. Patient's laboratory results has not changed.

Do apostrophes make (health) articles hard to read?

Click to expand...

Your first three sentences are contractions: the 's represents a word (is, has) or part of a word (cannot>can't, the ' represents the -no-). Google "using contractions in writing" or something like that to read up on the rules; contractions in written language are very casual. Sometimes you see them used in writing where the writer wants to sound accessible and friendly. You would definitely not see them in medical journals, and you usually do not see them in business writing--you see them where the writer wants to adopt a casual, accessible tone. So, knowing that, it's up to you whether to use them or not in what you're writing; I have no way of knowing what tone you want to use.

Note, by the way, that your first sentence shouldn't end in a question mark. If you want that to be a question, you have to say "is it" rather than "it is" ("why is it used"). And that, of course, means you can't use a contraction there.

Your fourth sentence is completely different; there's no contraction there. No word or part of a word is missing; the apostrophe isn't replacing anything. Here, the 's represents the possessive. Google "use of the possessive form" or something if you want to learn more about that. Also, note that you need to say "the patient's"; you can't just say "patient's" here. And since laboratory results are plural, you have to say "have not changed," not "has not changed."

ideagirl said:

Sometimes you see them used in writing where the writer wants to sound accessible and friendly.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's about being accessible...

Note, by the way, that your first sentence shouldn't end in a question mark. If you want that to be a question, you have to say "is it" rather than "it is" ("why is it used"). And that, of course, means you can't use a contraction there.

Click to expand...

I actually found this in Google: Why it's done . It's mainly used in titles, so there's no question marks. But can I write it as in above link - it is - and without question mark?

alleycat said:

You might want to read some of the OWLS (Online Writing Lessons), or other online grammar guides first, and then post any questions you might have. There are a number of these online; this is one, but you can find others just by searching for "grammar":

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/cnt_punc.asp

I have several books on grammar but one of the handiest is Esssential English Grammar. It cost about $6.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Good references!

Argh! Too many rules, my head is going to explode!

(Is that proper usage of a comma?)

Bufty said:

A comma basically says - if you don't take a little breath here, the sentence will sound odd.

Click to expand...

Um, no. (Yes, I said that without any breath between the words.)

Commas are not guides for reading aloud (though a proper understanding of their function is certainly essential for good reading aloud, as is true of all punctuation). They have several important syntactical functions, such as separating certain kinds of clause and phrase, items in a list, multiple adjectives modifying the same noun, direct speech and quotations from the main narrative, and so on. In some of these instances you would certainly want to pause briefly, but not always. Even more problems are caused by simply sticking commas into written prose wherever you think you might pause while speaking. Written English is not supposed to be a precisely coded representation of the spoken word and thinking of it this way leads to all kinds of errors.

boron said:

Is there any type or form of text where using apostrophes would be inappropriate from any reason?

Click to expand...

Copora study shows you're least likely to find contractions (Your 'don't', 'won't' etc) in medical and academic discuorse. But I hate the term 'It's because contractions are informal uasge and it's imporper to use them in science and medical journals'. It's nothing to do with that. Full form (Will not, cannot) simply allows you to play better with tone and tonicity to get your point across:

You won't go out
v
you will NOT go out tonight

Although, you'll probably find objective science/medical papers don't use these kind of heavy obligatory modals (will, must etc) because they show heavy author-stance (not good if you're trying to be objective), They'd opt for the less obligatory (may, might, shall etc). Even then, though, any modals offer an insight into author-stance in science/medical discourse...

And I'm babbling a bit...

Too many rules, my head is going to explode!

Maryn said:

Afraid not. That's a comma splice, the joining of two complete sentences with a comma when sentence-ending punctuation would have been correct.

Click to expand...

Too many rules so my head is going to explode!

Comma before "so" or not?

Though there are exceptions, there are seven fundamental rules for when to use a comma. None of them are tricky; the problem is people don't stick to these rules.

1. To separate items in a list
2. To connect two independent clauses (an independent clause is a group of words with a subject,verb, and direct object)
3. To attach a dependent clause to the beginning of an independent clause (a dependent clause is a group of words that does not include a subject, verb, and direct object--read the first sentence of my post for an example)
4. To separate two adjectives
5. To show a change of direction in a sentence
6. To separate states from countries, names from titles, and dates when written in full
7. To separate a quote from its introduction or explanation

I hope this helps.

boron said:

Too many rules so my head is going to explode!

Comma befor "so" or not?

Click to expand...

Yes, a comma follows the first independent clause (see jjacob's second rule above) whenever the two independent clauses are separated by one of the seven coordinating conjunctions: and, or, nor, but, for, yet, so.

jjacobs said:

Though there are exceptions, there are seven fundamental rules for when to use a comma. None of them are tricky; the problem is people don't stick to these rules.

1. To separate items in a list
2. To connect two independent clauses (an independent clause is a group of words with a subject,verb, and direct object)
3. To attach a dependent clause to the beginning of an independent clause (a dependent clause is a group of words that does not include a subject, verb, and direct object--read the first sentence of my post for an example)
4. To separate two adjectives
5. To show a change of direction in a sentence
6. To separate states from countries, names from titles, and dates when written in full
7. To separate a quote from its introduction or explanation

I hope this helps.

Click to expand...

1. Here's one big, red apple. Comma, yes?
2. Two independent clauses (example?) are not the same as two independent sentences, right?

boron said:

1. Here's one big, red apple. Comma, yes?
2. Two independent clauses (example?) are not the same as two independent sentences, right?

Click to expand...

1. Yes.
2. This excerpt has been posted here in AW a few times. I hope you find some of the examples useful. Examples you asked for are listed in item 1:

From "Commas for U.S. Publications"

Noah Webster set forth five easy rules for necessary commas. A very few comma uses are optional. The vast majority of the remainder are superfluous – excessive, pointless, unnecessary.

1. A comma is necessary to separate a compound structure, two or more main clauses joined by one of the seven coordinating conjunctions: and, or, nor, but, for, yet, so.

The woman drank black coffee, and she ate a croissant.

You can conduct yourself in a pleasant manner, or you can be horrible.

Evan loves Susanne, but he cannot forget Elena.

If the writer chooses to make those constructions into simple sentences, then the comma is not used:

The woman drank black coffee and ate a croissant.

You can conduct yourself in a pleasant manner or be horrible.

Evan loves Susanne but cannot forget Elena.

2. A comma is necessary to separate a long introductory element before a main clause. The rule holds true for both simple and complex constructions.

Even though ignorant of our culture, we must always be kind to strangers. (Simple)

Since Constance is new to our company, all of us should strive to help her. (Complex)

It is always correct to set off any introductory element with a comma, but custom has made the practice optional for shorter elements. Either is acceptable:

Later, you can join us for dessert. Later you can join us for dessert.

3. Commas separate items in a series:

James found blondes attractive, redheads adorable, and brunettes irresistible.

The final comma before the conjunction is always correct. However, the journalistic practice which came about due to briefer construction (and to save on the cost of lead when linotypes were used) is a viable option:

James found blondes attractive, redheads adorable and brunettes irresistible.

Also correct is: James found blondes attractive, redheads adorable, brunettes irresistible.


4. Interjections and forms of address are set off with commas.

Yes, I will accompany you to the ball. No, I won’t!

You, sir, are out of line. You may be assured, ma’am, of our concern.

Are you certain of that prognosis, Doctor?

Thank you, Mother, for all you do.

There’s a world of difference in "Let’s eat, Grandma" and "Let’s eat Grandma."

5. Appositives are words, phrases, or clauses of explanation or further identification. They must be set off with commas fore and aft. The rule includes the state following the name of a city and the year following the day of the month.

Mrs. Ellen Bennet, my mother, is in the drawing room.

The Brooklyn Bridge, as opposed to this matchstick construction, is sturdy and reliable.

He was born on June 23, 1941, near Big Timber, Montana, along the Yellowstone River.

5A. The final necessary use of the comma is the most difficult for many writers. It’s actually the same as rule 5, but it’s often presented in isolation because of its difficulty. As with appositives, it separates nonrestrictive clauses in a sentence. The nonrestrictive clause is not essential to the sentence. It merely adds information:

Abraham Lincoln, who was the tallest of U.S. presidents, was an imposing figure of a man.

The grizzly, a bear misunderstood by tourists, is named Ursus horribilis for good reason.

By contrast, a restrictive clause is essential to the sentence:

The lady who cried is my mother.

The man who shot Liberty Valance became a state senator.

I have had fights with people over some of these since about 1976, when it seems the whole plural/possessive thing got messed up. Apparently, Somebody Out There was very authoritatively telling it wrong.

OK, a bit more testing:

Values are always expressed in mm Hg regardless of measuring instrument used.

Above, an independent clause is followed by a dependent clause, correct? I feel an urge to put a comma before regardless, but I can't find a rule to do so.

Regardless of measuring instrument used, values are always expressed in mm Hg.

Above, there is a dependent clause,(?) followed by an independent clause, so comma, right?

Values are always expressed in mm Hg regardless of measuring instrument used.

Regardless of measuring instrument used, values are always expressed in mm Hg.

There is only one clause in each sentence above. It is "values are always expressed in mm Hg." To be an independent clause means it can stand by itelf as a complete sentence. The rest of each sentence above is a phrase, a fragment.

The first sentence has the fragment phrase after the independent clause, so the comma is optional. Do as you please.

The second sentence has the fragment phrase as a long introductory element, so the comma is necessary (rule 2).

Edit: Rightly so, it was pointed out that my link of the optional comma to rule 5 is confusing. As usual, Bufty is spot on. Since the comma is optional, it's not specifically covered in rules for necessary commas.

What about this:

Blood pressure 120/80 is often considered as (an?) ideal for an adult because it was found out that it is an average blood pressure among healthy adult people.

Because is not one of those 7 "anboys" coordinating conjunctions, so - no comma?

Also, should I put an before ideal, since ideal belongs to the noun blood pressure? Comma before since in the last sentence?

That's a pretty long-winded way of getting information across if all you are trying to say is - .

Blood pressure of 120/80 is considered ideal for a healthy adult.

boron said:

What about this:

Blood pressure 120/80 is often considered as (an?) ideal for an adult because it was found out that it is an average blood pressure among healthy adult people.

Because is not one of those 7 "anboys" coordinating conjunctions, so - no comma?

Also, should I put an before ideal, since ideal belongs to the noun blood pressure? Comma before since in the last sentence?

Click to expand...

Blood pressure 120/80 is often considered as (an?) ideal for an adult because (since) it was found out that it is an average blood pressure among healthy adult people.

Bufty said:

That's a pretty long-winded way of getting information across if all you are trying to say is - .

Blood pressure of 120/80 is considered ideal for a healthy adult.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to explain where the idea to use ideal came from. I think I'll use since instead of because. I gave above example to ask about using comma before because (or since) in above case.

the grammer link isn't working.