Another comma thingie

I like it.

Some may say you could use a comma after "ball," but you don't need it. "There was no ball" is a complete sentence, and what comes after the "so" conjunction is a complete sentence, so technically you could put one there, but when you have an intro clause that is short like this it sometimes flows better without the comma -- and one is not required.

I think it reads much better without the comma, so i would omit it, but keep the one after "trees," because it makes for a nice pause there. You don't want the reader rushing into the next sentence, as thought the sentences were crashing into each other. Just my thoughts.

Also, and this may be me being weird, but the comma adds a little more emotional attachment between the speaker and Jenny. It's as if the speaker paused for a half-second before getting to imagining Jenny pitching to him, because it's meaningful. You run them together without the comma and it doesn't seem to matter as much.

After rereading it today, I think i am in agreement with the comma after "ball." The general idea of short intro clauses is still correct, i believe.

Since your comma question has been answered, blue, I figured I'd tweak and prod and completely rewrite what you've labored over:

I hit rocks into nearby tress, all the while imagining Jenny was pitching a ball to me.

My first thought is to add the comma after ball and place parentheses around 'all...me' to create this:

There was no ball, so I practiced hitting rocks into the nearby trees (all the while imagining Jenny pitching to me).

No, wait...

Okay, I'm going to have to dissent on the comma-after-ball thingy.

There was no ball so I practiced hitting rocks into the nearby trees, all the while imagining Jenny pitching to me.

I like to use commas not necessarily where the clauses dictate, but where my thought pauses. Most folks pause in their spoken sentences, generally where there's a discrete thought, but young folks are notorious for running several thoughts together without a pause.

So in the context, is this a mature person describing things pretty dispassionately, or is he re-living the memory as he speaks?

Comma or not-comma depends on the mood.

KODB, that's also how I structure my sentences. For the sentence in question, I imagined a country boy saying it.

I hate commas and rules. Leave it off.

bluejester12 said:

How about this sentence? One, two, or none?


There was no ball so I practiced hitting rocks into the nearby trees, all the while imagining Jenny pitching to me.

Click to expand...

I personally would try to make your one sentence into two shorter sentences. I would put a period where you have the comma in the given example, and I would change the following sentence fragment appropriately.

To give a visual example of what I am talking about, I would write your example similar to what follows:

---

There was no ball, so I practiced hitting rocks into the nearby trees. I imagined Jenny pitching to me the whole time.

Ian makes a good point. I kinda like "all the while" if you are going for more of a poetic feel here; just be careful with it since that phrase is often overused and somewhat cliche. If you are not going for a dreamy prose style, then nix the "all the while" and do something like Ian suggests.

I guess I thought you were going for a dreamy, poetic style when I first read it, which is why i originally suggested leaving the first comma off. The commas after short intro clauses seem a little stiff and "all business" to me.

Regardless of comma implications, there must be a better way to start this sentence without using, "There was..."

Silver King said:

Regardless of comma implications, there must be a better way to start this sentence without using, "There was..."

Click to expand...

Perhaps something like "I had no ball, but..."?

Ian D. Mecantie said:

Perhaps something like "I had no ball,

Click to expand...

...so I hit rocks into nearby trees, all the while imagining Jenny was pitching to me."

That works.

Is anyone else in need of a rewrite while Ian and I are available?

I had no ball, so I practiced using rocks, hitting them at nearby trees and all the while imagining Jenny pitching to me.


I'll strike in with the above. One thing I noticed, aside from comma use, is that the writer used, "into the nearby trees." The use of into, I believe, is incorrect here. You jump into a pool, you cannot hit a rock into a tree; the bark would prevent it. You could shoot an arrow into a tree, but never a rock.

There are rules for commas in structured grammatical writing that fits the needs of professional writing. In fiction, commas may be placed or ommitted depending on the writer's desire for pacing.

Gunwriter said:

I had no ball, so I practiced using rocks, hitting them at nearby trees and all the while imagining Jenny pitching to me.


I'll strike in with the above. One thing I noticed, aside from comma use, is that the writer used, "into the nearby trees." The use of into, I believe, is incorrect here. You jump into a pool, you cannot hit a rock into a tree; the bark would prevent it. You could shoot an arrow into a tree, but never a rock.

There are rules for commas in structured grammatical writing that fits the needs of professional writing. In fiction, commas may be placed or ommitted depending on the writer's desire for pacing.

Click to expand...

First, welcome to the boards, Gunwriter. It's good to meet you. I hope you find the forums useful in your writing.


Second, it might be a good idea for someone to look up what you mentioned. I'm afraid I don't where to look, but I'm sure someone around here will be able to point us all in the right direction. Thanks for bringing that up; I think it's an interesting point.

I don't remember specifically where I found the rules I quoted. I've read quite a few books on writing and grammar, trying to educate myself, and somewhere in all that reading, a few things must have sunk in.

Gunwriter said:

I don't remember specifically where I found the rules I quoted. I've read quite a few books on writing and grammar, trying to educate myself, and somewhere in all that reading, a few things must have sunk in.

Click to expand...

I have a similar problem to the one you mentioned here. My memory is somewhat selective, and I remember quotes more easily than I remember who said them.

Oh, well. It's a problem a number of people face. I hope you'll stick around and peruse the forums. There's a lot of stuff here to read about. Most importantly, have fun.

Gunwriter said:

[I'll strike in with the above. One thing I noticed, aside from comma use, is that the writer used, "into the nearby trees." The use of into, I believe, is incorrect here. You jump into a pool, you cannot hit a rock into a tree; the bark would prevent it. You could shoot an arrow into a tree, but never a rock.

Click to expand...

If this were singular, I might agree. It's not, though; it's plural. "Into the nearby trees" means "into a nearby clump/stand of trees," it doesn't mean hitting each rock into an individual tree. I don't see a problem with it at all.

Gunwriter said:

You jump into a pool, you cannot hit a rock into a tree; the bark would prevent it. You could shoot an arrow into a tree, but never a rock.

Click to expand...

I understood "into the trees" as meaning "among the trees," not inside them beyond the bark.

We can split hairs further and say you CAN hit a rock into a tree. I've done it using a wrist rocket sling shot; buried that sucker so far in it was covered in sap.

I see your point.

Silver King,

I see exactly what you're talking about. I stand corrected.

Gunwriter said:

I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

I thought the way you read the sentence was simply different than my perception of what it says. In that sense, there really isn't a correct way, as we see the rocks and the trees differently. Heck, we can write endless variations of the same sentence and still never see the same thing.

Your insight is certainly appreciated, as I hadn't considered a more literal reading of the sentence.

'I had no ball....'

sounds really ugly to me because I remember hearing some grammarian tell me that you can't have nothing, i.e. have no, had no. You must have something.

So: 'I didn't have a ball...' works better for me.

pdr said:

sounds really ugly to me because I remember hearing some grammarian tell me that you can't have nothing, i.e. have no, had no. You must have something.

So: 'I didn't have a ball...' works better for me.

Click to expand...

I had forgotten about that; I seem to also remember being taught that very rule in Elementary School. Thanks for pointing it out.