Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 August 10
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 9 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 11 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
August 10
[edit]Comma after "in other instances"
[edit]Should there be a comma after "in other instances" / "in other cases" /"in other [whatever]" at the beginning of a sentence, such as "In other instances they traveled alone"? In books I've seen both. That said, is comma mandatory, optional or redundant? --212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- See Rule 7b here. --Jayron32 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Following rule 7b on a random website is of course optional, but in any case, a rule concerned with "expressions that interrupt the sentence flow" has no relevance to phrases which appear at the beginning of the sentence. Rule 4a there is a better fit: if the introductory phrase is clear and brief (three or four words), the comma is optional. HenryFlower 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's just as fine of a rule as rule 7b. If you don't like that website, this one and this one also agree with that page both noting that the comma is optional if the introductory phrase is short enough. Strunk and White are more restrictive, and do not give the option: "Participial phrases preceded by a conjunction or by a preposition, nouns in apposition, adjectives, and adjective phrases come under the same rule if they begin the sentence." (bold mine). According to MLA, however, they are required for a "long" introductory phrase, though MLA does not define "long": [1]. The Chicago Manual of Style is behind a paywall, but this FAQ question notes that commas after introductory phrases, if short enough, are optional (without defining what is short enough). Is there any specific style guide you wish to me to find that ALSO agrees with the website I first gave, or do you have another specific website which disagrees with all of these? --Jayron32 17:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- A little over-defensive. Since clarification seems necessary: the website which you chose to cite is a crap site, regardless of whether any "rule" on it may or may not be a good one. It was a poor choice. You also chose from that site a "rule" which has no relevance to the OP's question, as I explained. Again, poor choice.
- That's just as fine of a rule as rule 7b. If you don't like that website, this one and this one also agree with that page both noting that the comma is optional if the introductory phrase is short enough. Strunk and White are more restrictive, and do not give the option: "Participial phrases preceded by a conjunction or by a preposition, nouns in apposition, adjectives, and adjective phrases come under the same rule if they begin the sentence." (bold mine). According to MLA, however, they are required for a "long" introductory phrase, though MLA does not define "long": [1]. The Chicago Manual of Style is behind a paywall, but this FAQ question notes that commas after introductory phrases, if short enough, are optional (without defining what is short enough). Is there any specific style guide you wish to me to find that ALSO agrees with the website I first gave, or do you have another specific website which disagrees with all of these? --Jayron32 17:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Following rule 7b on a random website is of course optional, but in any case, a rule concerned with "expressions that interrupt the sentence flow" has no relevance to phrases which appear at the beginning of the sentence. Rule 4a there is a better fit: if the introductory phrase is clear and brief (three or four words), the comma is optional. HenryFlower 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your other cites are irrelevant as regards content, since we seem to agree that 4b on the first site happens to be reasonable, if not an authority. But as authorities, the opinions of Dana Driscoll and Allen Brizee, a blog, and a 1918 S and W which actually talks about the requirement of a grammatical subject (that's the "same rule" they mention), are similarly unhelpful. HenryFlower 20:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have not stopped you from providing references, have I? Put up or shut up...--Jayron32 03:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your other cites are irrelevant as regards content, since we seem to agree that 4b on the first site happens to be reasonable, if not an authority. But as authorities, the opinions of Dana Driscoll and Allen Brizee, a blog, and a 1918 S and W which actually talks about the requirement of a grammatical subject (that's the "same rule" they mention), are similarly unhelpful. HenryFlower 20:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- The way I think about it is, if I were to read it aloud, would I pause there or not ? If so, I'd insert a comma. If not, I'd skip it. This supports the idea of a comma being needed more after a long clause, both to catch your breath and digest what's been said, than after a short one. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)