# Comma workshop



## pontios (Jun 26, 2013)

Good morning from cold, sunny Melbourne.

I hope I'm doing the right thing here; I just thought it would be best to keep all my queries, on commas, in the one thread (I don't want to rework the sentences I'll be querying - I just want to use them as working examples, even if they're flawed).

Here's query 1.

*After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea and somewhere east of the city they entered a large open space containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.*
I've deliberately left out 2 commas, above  (incidentally, should there be a comma before above? - that could be my second query).

I'm not sure where to place the 2 commas. Which of the following is correct?
.. ,and somewhere east of the city, .. or ... and, somewhere east of the city, (the latter makes more sense - but I feel it's incorrect).

Something tells me it's the former, and if so, (I wasn't even sure about these 2 commas now) it would mean the "and" is effectively taken away, i.e., the sentence effectively becomes:  (should there be commas around "effectively"? - that could be my third query!)  After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea, they entered a large open space...


----------



## daeman (Jun 26, 2013)

pontios said:


> Good morning from cold, sunny Melbourne.
> I just thought it would be best to keep all my queries, on commas, in the one thread (I don't want to rework the sentences I'll be querying - I just want to use them as working examples).
> 
> Here's query 1.
> ...


Good evening from hot starry Greece. I agree it would be best to keep all your queries on commas in this thread. :)
To the point:

*After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea and somewhere east of the city they entered a large open space containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.
*fast, almost non stop utterance
*
After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea and, somewhere east of the city, they entered a large open space containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.*
parenthetically injecting "somewhere east of the city" for rhythm and balance 

*After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea, and somewhere east of the city they entered a large open space containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.*
a pause after "Oradea" separates the two sentences*

After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea, and somewhere east of the city, they entered a large open space containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.*
a pause ends the locative part of the second sentence, like the temporal in the first one

*After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea, and, somewhere east of the city, they entered a large open space, containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.
*a bumpy ride, but grammatically sound

Take your pick.




pontios said:


> i.e., the sentence effectively becomes: (should there be commas around "effectively"? - that could be my third query!)


 No; the sentence, effectively, becomes: a hiccup. ;)




pontios said:


> After a bumpy two hour trip, they passed through Oradea, they entered a large open space.


 This looks disjointed.


----------



## pontios (Jun 26, 2013)

Thanks, Daeman!

So the rule with commas is - there isn't one (just joking).
Are all your versions acceptable and which one would you choose?

I'll come back to this thread later.

Thank you for your help.


----------



## daeman (Jun 26, 2013)

...
I think #2 for fast (nudging the readers) or #5 for slow reading (letting them breathe), depending on the overall sequence and the desired speed for the specific scene, cinematically. Αλλά της νύχτας τα καμώματα, καμιά φορά τα βλέπει η μέρα και γελά.


----------



## pontios (Jun 26, 2013)

Thank you, daeman. 
You've covered all bases with your answer.
#2 seems to fit the bill as far as nudging the reader along, and it's the one I'll end up using.

Here's an interesting Oscar Wilde quote which you may have come across: (no comma before which, right?)
“I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again.” 
The other interesting thing is; should there have been a comma before "and" in his above quote? Also, what about one after "afternoon"? 


What about this sentence .. let's call it query 2.

*Her face was wet and frozen which also suggested to him that she had stopped breathing. * (previously, he had put his ear up close to her mouth and couldn't detect her breath)
Should there be a comma before "which"? (I'm tempted to leave it out).

And, my last query for the day - query 3.

*He stopped a little further on to listen for the baby's breath but couldn't detect it once more.*
Should there be commas around "to listen for the baby's breath" ?


----------



## nickel (Jun 26, 2013)

[1]
Η προσωπική μου προτίμηση:

After a bumpy two-hour trip they passed through Oradea and, somewhere east of the city, entered a large open space containing three rectangular, double-storey prison buildings.

two-hour trip, αφού και double-storey buildings
Έφαγα και το δεύτερο they στο πλαίσιο του μινιμαλισμού.

Το _effectively_ θέλει κόμματα αν είναι sentence adverb:

*effectively*
in such a manner as to achieve a desired result: _make sure that resources are used effectively_
actually but not officially or explicitly: _they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating_ 
[sentence adverb]:_effectively,_ this means that companies will be able to avoid regulations

[2]
Her face was wet and frozen, which also suggested to him that she had stopped breathing. 
Το κόμμα είναι απαραίτητο όταν το which αναφέρεται σε όλη την πρόταση που προηγείται και μεταφράζεται «πράγμα το οποίο», «κάτι το οποίο».

[3]
Όχι, δεν βάζουμε κόμματα για να χωρίσουμε το απαρέμφατο του σκοπού εδώ.


----------



## pontios (Jun 27, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.
Much appreciated!

1) Συμφωνώ με την προσωπική σου προτίμηση. I'm all for minimalism (is there a smaller synonym for "minimalism"?).

2) και 3) Ωραία τα εξήγησες.

Here's one with the kitchen sink thrown in for good measure - the last one for the week, I promise.

Query 4 

*She then took all the measurements which she wrote into her notebook and the fabric material which Valeria had supplied back to her workshop and started to cut and sew all the pieces together.
*
(Something just occurred to me - should it be "wrote" or "had writtten"? - probably "had written", now that I think about it).


----------



## nickel (Jun 27, 2013)

Όπως λες, had written αφού είχε ήδη γράψει τα μέτρα στο καρνέ της.

She then took all the measurements (which) she had written in her notebook and the fabric material (which) Valeria had supplied back to her workshop and started to cut and sew all the pieces together.

Κανένα κόμμα δεν μπορείς να βάλεις, ούτε για διευκόλυνση.


----------



## pontios (Jun 27, 2013)

Thanks, nickel.

Are you saying there's no commas whatsoever, if we leave out "which"?


I would have thought the following would also be possible -

She then took all the measurements, she had written in her notebook, and the fabric material, Valeria had supplied, back to her workshop and started to cut and sew all the pieces together.

Would the above be wrong?


----------



## nickel (Jun 27, 2013)

Yes, totally wrong. 

"Which" is optional because these are defining relatives and "which" is the object in both relatives. 
You will never see defining relatives with commas around them as in your #9.

I'm off now, but please have a good look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause#Restrictive_and_non-restrictive

More tomorrow.


----------



## pontios (Jun 27, 2013)

Very interesting, nickel.

So "which" plays no essential role here and without it we have 2 reduced restrictive (or defining) relative clauses (underlined below), that identify which measurements and which fabric material we're referring to and so the comma must be left out. Restrictive relative clauses(reduced or otherwise) do not use commas (note to self).

the measurements she had written in the notebook 

the fabric material Valeria had supplied


----------



## pontios (Jun 27, 2013)

correction - I should have written "are required to identify" where I've written"identify" above.


----------



## pontios (Jun 28, 2013)

I was going to continue next week, but I've got this query; sorry.

Query 5

But very few of them looked back as they were too shocked to grieve over their lost homes.  (as ="because")

He looked back towards his mother as he drove off.  (as = "while"/"whilst")

I can see the need for a comma before "as" in the first example, but I wasn't sure about the second.

One more for the weekend.

Query 6

This house belongs to Joe Blow who happened to escape from a ship on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples Italy.
or 
This house belongs to Joe Blow who defected from the ship X on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples Italy.


----------



## nickel (Jun 28, 2013)

Hi. Once more in a hurry:

[5]
When secondary clauses (e.g. clauses of time beginning with 'as', 'while', 'when' or clauses of reason beginning with 'as', 'because') come after the main clause, a comma is not needed to separate them because the beginning of the secondary clause is made obvious by the presence of the conjunction. If, on the other hand, you begin with the secondary clause, you must place a comma at its end before you start your main clause. Examples:
Frank watched him as he ambled through the crowd. 
As she grew older, she kept more to herself.
I must stop now as I have to go out.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/as

[6]
Please have another look at what we said about non-restrictive relatives previously.
There's one comma missing in 6a and two in 6b.


----------



## pontios (Jun 28, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.
5) understood.

6) I realise this query was similar to 4), but I wanted to see the flip side.
In this example, Joe Blow is definitely identified - which I thought meant that we need to use the commas here, as "who happened to escape from a ship ..." becomes additional information. 

So I thought in this example - 

This house belongs to Joe Blow, who happened to escape from a ship on which he was a crew member, when it was berthed in Naples, Italy. (3 commas - you said 1 only).
or
This house belongs to Joe Blow, who defected from the Titanic, on which he was a crew member, when it was berthed in Naples,Italy. (4 commas - you said 2).

But then there's a secondary clause starting with "when" here, so I'm confused.

So does it reduce down to this? 

This house belongs to Joe Blow, who happened to escape from a ship on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples, Italy. 

This house belongs to Joe Blow, who defected from the Titanic, on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples,Italy. 

Losing the comma before "when" changes the whole sense - it's as if Joe Blow was a crew member only when it was berthed in Naples, Italy?
So we need this comma which means the last rendition (without the comma) is invalid.

These are just my ramblings, I'm not suggesting that's how it is or should be... I admit I'm confused.


----------



## nickel (Jun 28, 2013)

This house belongs to Joe Blow who happened to escape from a ship on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples Italy.

I wasn’t looking at the end of the sentence so I missed the glaring omission of the comma between Naples and Italy. The missing comma I was referring to was the one that you should put after Joe Blow. Everything that follows is a parenthetical non-restrictive relative clause. This is not the case with “on which he was a crew member”. You may put it within commas and make it non-restrictive (as if you were putting it inside brackets), which would solve the ambiguity of reference for the time clause. If you don’t put the second relative in commas (which is grammatically better), you may have to rephrase to make the time clause reference more clear.

So:
This house belongs to Joe Blow, who happened to escape from a ship on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples, Italy.
Or:
This house belongs to Joe Blow, who happened to escape from a ship (on which he was a crew member) when it was berthed in Naples, Italy.

---

This house belongs to Joe Blow who defected from the ship X on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples Italy. 

Your version:
This house belongs to Joe Blow, who defected from the Titanic, on which he was a crew member, when it was berthed in Naples, Italy.

Yes, it is correct with the commas you have added. Never mind my counting at 4:47 a.m. I was focusing on the relative.


----------



## pontios (Jun 29, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.
You've explained it very well - I see my mistake now.

I'll get the hang of it soon (thanks for your patience).


----------



## pontios (Jun 30, 2013)

Καλημέρα.

One more query (sorry).

Query 7

If a baby ( let''s say Maria) or a ship (let's say the QE2) has been identified (as Maria or the QE2) in an earlier sentence or passage, what happens when we refer to the baby or the ship again in general terms (as the ship or the baby) - do we still keep treating the secondary clauses in respect of the baby or the ship as restrictive relative clauses (even though it's become clear that we're referring to Maria or the QE2)?
Does anything change?

The man whom you just introduced yourself to, was John, whom you met last year. 
Would this be correct?


----------



## nickel (Jun 30, 2013)

In all cases, the trick that helps us find out whether a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive is to remove it from the sentence and see how well the word defined by it stands on its own.

The man was John. (Which man was John?)
The man you just introduced yourself to was John. (Which John? Unless you have already discussed John.)
The man you just introduced yourself to was the Australian guy you met at my party last year.
The man you just introduced yourself to was John — you remember John; you met him at my party last year.
The man you just introduced yourself to was John, whom you met last year. (grammar and commas correct, but the sentence does not make sense to me)


----------



## pontios (Jun 30, 2013)

Thanks, nickel

My last example didn't make sense to me either (I don't know what I was thinking).

In the case of the ship or the baby, once they've been introduced as the Titanic or Maria in a story line, they're usually then referred to in general terms.
I just wanted to establish whether this alters the way they are treated (as far as their secondary relative clauses are concerned - by the sound of it, they switch from being treated as restrictive to non restrictive).


----------



## Philip (Jul 1, 2013)

> The man you just introduced yourself to was John, whom you met last year. (grammar and commas correct, but the sentence does not make sense to me)



Makes perfect sense to me. Context: 1) John left almost immediately after the addressee introduced themselves, and 2) You are remonstrating mildly with the guy for having forgotten that (s)he had previously met John.


----------



## pontios (Jul 2, 2013)

That's what I was getting at, Philip - but I used one "whom" too many.
Nickel restated it better.
The context (the way you've explained it) makes sense - but not the way I worded it.

Query 9 - Where do the commas go?

*Later that afternoon he tried approaching the shops once more in the hope of chatting to the Russians but the guard warned him to leave once again and he had to obey.*


a. Later that afternoon he tried approaching the shops once more in the hope of chatting to the Russians, but the guard warned him to leave once again and he had to obey. (1 comma)

or 

b. Later that afternoon, he tried approaching the shops once more in the hope of chatting to the Russians, but the guard warned him to leave once again and he had to obey. (2 commas)

or 

c. Later that afternoon, he tried approaching the shops once more, in the hope of chatting to the Russians, but the guard warned him to leave once again and he had to obey. (3 commas)

or 

d. Later that afternoon, he tried approaching the shops once more in the hope of chatting to the Russians, but the guard warned him to leave once again, and he had to obey. (comma before the and at the end).

Is there another way again?
What about a semicolon or a dash at the end? - "but the guard warned him to leave once again .."


Are there any subtle differences, sense-wise?
Are all the above versions acceptable/correct and is there more emphasis given in c. (assuming that the commas are correctly placed) that he hopes to speak to the Russians?


----------



## nickel (Jul 2, 2013)

Hi, this one does not _need_ any commas. So it is up to the writer how many commas he would like to have. I consider the one before "in the hope" superfluous. Allow me to go for one comma and one small change:

Later that afternoon he tried approaching the shops once more in the hope of chatting to the Russians, but again the guard warned him to leave and he had to obey.


----------



## pontios (Jul 3, 2013)

Thanks, nickel.
It did feel like it needed reworking, with "once" appearing twice in the sentence (if that makes any sense), so I consider your rendition an improvement.
Are the commas okay above? - please remove any superfluous commas or add them where/when necessary.


----------



## pontios (Jul 3, 2013)

Query 10

They left for Thessaloniki (obviously no comma) vs They left bound for Thessaloniki.

Is there a need for a comma before bound? .. I'm expecting one there.


----------



## staval (Jul 3, 2013)

pontios said:


> This house belongs to Joe Blow, who happened to escape from a ship on which he was a crew member when it was berthed in Naples, Italy.



Σύμφωνα με τους κανόνες που διδάσκονται σχετικά με τις defining και non-defining clauses, αυτή είναι η μοναδική σωστή λύση με κόμμα. Είναι μή προσδιοριστική το "who...", επομένως χωρίζεται με κόμμα. Το " on which..." λόγω της ύπαρξης πρόθεσης δεν μπορεί να έχει κόμμα. Το "when..." δεν είναι αναφορική αλλά χρονική επομένως, λόγω αντιστροφής και ακολουθίας σε σχέση με την κύρια πρόταση, δεν παίρνει κόμμα και το μόνο λογικό κόμμα μετά είναι ανάμεσα στη Νάπολη και την Ιταλία, όπου υποβόσκει μία δευτερεύουσα ελλειπτική αναφορική ("η οποία ανήκει στην Ιταλία") που με το πέρασμα των χρόνων έχει επικρατήσει ως απλοποιημένη σύνταξη.
Αυτή είναι η γνώση μου μετά από 19 χρόνια διδασκαλίας της Αγγλικής ως L2.


----------



## staval (Jul 3, 2013)

pontios said:


> b. Later that afternoon, he tried approaching the shops once more in the hope of chatting to the Russians, but the guard warned him to leave once again and he had to obey. (2 commas)



Σίγουρα κόμμα μετά το "afternoon". Θα χρησιμοποιήσω έναν "κανόνα", μία υπεραπλούστευση που κάνω για τους μαθητές μου: ο,τιδήποτε προηγείται του υποκειμένου - με λίγα λόγια κάθε εισαγωγική έκφραση, συνήθως χρονικές- χωρίζεται με κόμμα πριν το υποκείμενο.
Επίσης, παρά τις διχογνωμίες σχετικά με το αν βάζουμε κόμμα πριν από conjunctions, εξαιτίας του κανόνα της Οξφόρδης, θα συμφωνήσω με το κόμμα πριν το "but" καθώς έχουμε μία πρόταση που θεωρείται επί της ουσίας αυτόνομη.


----------



## nickel (Jul 3, 2013)

Έχω τις αντιρρησούλες μου.



staval said:


> Το " on which..." λόγω της ύπαρξης πρόθεσης δεν μπορεί να έχει κόμμα.



Εδώ φοβάμαι ότι ξεχνάς τις μη προσδιοριστικές που ξεκινούν με πρόθεση. Άλλωστε, οι προσδιοριστικές μπορούν να πετάξουν εντελώς το αναφορικό, π.χ. _The plane we flew on had the coolest seats ever._

Μη προσδιοριστικές:
_The house is made up of two floors, on which there is still some of the old decoration and furniture.
And that is cousin Andrew, with whom we hardly get along._





staval said:


> Σίγουρα κόμμα μετά το "afternoon". Θα χρησιμοποιήσω έναν "κανόνα", μία υπεραπλούστευση που κάνω για τους μαθητές μου: οτιδήποτε προηγείται του υποκειμένου - με λίγα λόγια κάθε εισαγωγική έκφραση, συνήθως χρονικές- χωρίζεται με κόμμα πριν το υποκείμενο.



Αυτό λέγεται πράγματι σε μαθητές και το εφαρμόζουν συχνά-πυκνά οι συγγραφείς σχολικών βιβλίων για να μπορούν οι μαθητές να εντοπίσουν γρήγορα το υποκείμενο της πρότασης. Ωστόσο, όχι μόνο δεν είναι ο κανόνας αλλά «κανονικά» είναι και λάθος: το επίρρημα ή η επιρρηματική φράση μπορεί στις περισσότερες περιπτώσεις να ξεχωρίσει από το υποκείμενο, άρα δεν προκύπτει σύγχυση που να επιβάλλει το κόμμα. Με πολλές εξαιρέσεις.

_Yesterday we flew to Paris.
On the way I met George outside his house.
On the other hand, most people hardly ever know why they put the commas where they put them._

Πού να τα διδάξεις όμως αυτά στους μαθητές...


----------



## staval (Jul 3, 2013)

nickel said:


> Έχω τις αντιρρησούλες μου.



Είμαι metoo, κληρονομικό από τον μπαμπά (μυταράς αυτός, μυτού εγώ ...).
Όσον αφορά τις εισαγωγικές εκφράσεις, θα προσπαθήσω να το παραθέσω με πηγές, όπως μπορώ:

*1.* 
Introductory phrases

Introductory phrases also set the stage for the main action of the sentence, but they are not complete clauses. Phrases don't have both a subject and a verb that are separate from the subject and verb in the main clause of the sentence. Common introductory phrases include prepositional phrases, appositive phrases, participial phrases, infinitive phrases, and absolute phrases.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/607/

*2.*

Rule 10

Use a comma after phrases of more than three words that begin a sentence. If the phrase has fewer than three words, the comma is optional.

Examples:
To apply for this job, you must have previous experience.
On February 14 many couples give each other candy or flowers.
OR
On February 14, many couples give each other candy or flowers.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

*3.*

http://prntscr.com/1ddgxq (ιτούτο ήτο πουδουφου...)
http://www.american.edu/cas/writing/pdf/upload/7-Rules-for-Comma-Use.pdf

*4.* _με παραθυράκι... όπως και το νούμερο 2_ 

3. Use a Comma After an Introductory Word Group

Use a comma after a phrase or clause that precedes the subject of the sentence:

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."
(Franklin Roosevelt)

"If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style."
(Quentin Crisp)

However, if there's no danger of confusing readers, you may omit the comma after a short introductory phrase:

"At first I thought the challenge was staying awake, so I guzzled venti cappuccinos and 20-ounce Mountain Dews."
http://grammar.about.com/od/punctuationandmechanics/tp/commaguide.htm

*5.* επίσης παραθυράκι (αρχίζει και κάνει ψυχρούλα εδώ μέσα!)

25. Use a comma after a series of prepositional phrases at the beginning of a sentence. Exception: A short prepositional phrase at the beginning of a sentence need not be followed by a comma unless it is required for clarity.

From his seat in the audience, he could not hear the actors.
Before the latest hit, Star Wars was my favorite movie.
On Sunday he plays tennis. (Comma not used.)
In 1776 the colonies declared their independence. (Comma not used.)

26. Use a comma after introductory infinitive phrases and introductory participial phrases used as modifiers. Infinitive phrases used as subjects need no comma. (An inverted sentence.)

To activate the alarm, pull the handle. (infinite phrase as modifier)
Erupting violently, Mt. St. Helens spewed ash for miles. (participial phrase as mofifier)
To live a good life was her only ambition. (infinitive phrase as subject, i.e., inverted sentence)
http://www.mikalac.com/comp/comma.html

*6.*

A comma may also set off a single prepositional phrase at the beginning to make the sentence clear. A comma is recommended after any introductory prepositional phrase of more than four words.

Correct: Under the kitchen table the dog cowered.
(Single short, clear phrase. No comma needed.)

Correct: Under the spreading chestnut tree, the village smithy stands.
(Comma optional, but helpful due to length of phrase)

Correct: Under the pile of clothes, we found his wallet.
(Two prepositional phrases, not in a series)

Incorrect: On the sand, of the beach, by the inlet, we relaxed in the sun.
(Do not separate the phrases since they are not in a series.)

Correct: On the sand of the beach by the inlet, we relaxed in the sun.

Correct: Over hill, over dale, we hit the dusty trail.
(The two phrases are in series here. We could say "Over hill and over dale.") 
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000074.htm

Εν ολίγοις, το παραθυράκι είναι απλό, από 4 λέξεις και πάνω υποχρεωτικό το κόμμα. Για εμένα που έχω ένα μικρό συντακτικό κόλλημα είναι απαραίτητο και στις 3,2,1  countdown

"On which..." είναι defining όμως... δίκιο για το ότι η πρόθεση δεν αποτελεί ανασταλτικό


----------



## nickel (Jul 3, 2013)

Πολύ ωραία τα παραδείγματά σου. Ο κανόνας για το μήκος της επιρρηματικής φράσης στην αρχή έχει (νομίζω) να κάνει περισσότερο με την προετοιμασία του αναγνώστη. Του λέει: «Προσοχή, ακολουθεί μεγάλη επιρρηματική φράση που τραβάει μέχρι εκεί που βλέπεις το κόμμα. Πάρε ανάσα». Δεν δημιουργείται οπωσδήποτε νοηματική ανάγκη, δεν απαιτείται σώνει και καλά το κόμμα για την άρση παρεξήγησης. Φαίνεται καθαρά εδώ (από τα παραπάνω παραδείγματα):

From his seat in the audience, he could not hear the actors.
Before the latest hit, Star Wars was my favorite movie.

Δεν κινδυνεύεις από τίποτα αν γράψεις:
From his seat in the audience he could not hear the actors.

Αλλά αυτό:
Before the latest hit, Star Wars was my favorite movie.
μπορεί να δημιουργήσει έναν στιγμιαίο δισταγμό αν το γράψεις χωρίς το κόμμα:
Before the latest hit Star Wars was my favorite movie.
για προφανείς λόγους: πέφτουν πολλά ουσιαστικά μαζί.


----------



## daeman (Jul 4, 2013)

...
On, commas there's a simple precise and, concise, rule:



daeman said:


> ...
> Χε χε, The Fumblerules of Grammar by William Safire  : Avoid commas, that are not necessary.


:devil::inno:


----------



## pontios (Jul 4, 2013)

Interesting discussion.

Query 11

a. *John and a few other curious townsfolk approached the area to find out what was going on but were waved away by the soldiers.*

b. *John and a few other curious townsfolk approached the area to find out what was going on, but they were waved away by the soldiers.* (I added "they").

I've placed a comma in version b as I thought the addition of "they" may require it. Is this indeed the case?
(By the way, I feel a. also needs a comma before "but" - even without "they").

Whereas -
*John approached but was stopped.* ... sounds like it doesn't need any commas - but is it because it's a short sentence (that it sounds okay without one)?


----------



## nickel (Jul 4, 2013)

Όπως τα λες. (Σε λίγο θα τα λες μόνος σου.)
Δες και τα παραδείγματα του ODE στο _but_:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/but?q=but

Τα ίδια, πάνω κάτω, λέμε και για τα κόμματα σε σχέση με το ελληνικό _αλλά_.


----------



## pontios (Jul 5, 2013)

Ευχαριστώ, nickel και daeman για την καθοδήγησή σας (και ευχαριστώ, staval, για τη συμβολή σου στην συζήτηση).

Σχετικά πρόσφατα, καταπιάστηκα με τα κόμματα, προσπαθώντας να καταλάβω τους κανόνες που υπαγορεύουν τη σωστή τους χρήση. 

Ή δυσκολία μου αυξάνεται από το γεγονός ότι δημιούργησα μεγάλες προτάσεις (μέσω της μετάφρασης μου), προσπαθώντας να προσδώσω κάποια ροή στην ιστορία, εδώ και εκεί, συνδυάζοντας κάποιες μικρότερες προτάσεις που ήταν (ή μου φαίνονταν τουλάχιστον) κάπως ξεχωριστές - του τύπου που συρράπτονται με ένα "ακόμη", ή "εάν", ή "διότι".
Εξουσιοδοτήθηκα εν λευκώ. :)

I might start another thread at some stage - a sentence workshop.


----------



## pontios (Jul 6, 2013)

Query 12

I'm finding this one tricky ..

a. "Is this you here in this photo or someone else?"

or let's say -

b. "John, is this you here in this photo or someone else?"

There's a number of ways it could be punctuated "John, is this you here in this photo? ...or someone else?" 
or possibly? "Is this you, here in this photo, or someone else?" or "Is this you here, in this photo ...?" or "
Is this you, here, in this photo ...?"
Effectively, there are two questions being asked - can we use one question mark?


----------



## Philip (Jul 6, 2013)

One question mark is no problem. Compare:

Tea or coffee?
Would you like tea or coffee?

To put two question marks would imply a goodish pause after the first alternative. Remember, you are trying to represent speech here, so it would all depend on how you think it was said originally. {Note: the comma after 'remember' in the previous sentence makes the meaning of the first part slightly different - I am not saying "you have forgotten", but "don't forget"].

If you want to suggest that the speaker used a lower intonation for 'here in this photo', then by all means use two commas. It would suggest that the speaker regards this information as incidental.


----------



## pontios (Jul 6, 2013)

Thanks, Philip.
Excellent answer.
I over-analysed it, as usual.
"Here in this photo" is crucial here (as it's evidence in a court trial).


I'll settle for ..
"John, is this you here in this photo or someone else?" 
a la .. "John, do you prefer tea or coffee?" :)


----------



## pontios (Jul 8, 2013)

Query 13a

Are the commas placed correctly?

*John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend, the truck driver, who had expected him.*

Normally, I wouldn't have placed a comma before "and", as "John" is the same subject/pronoun here - but because there's a preceding "and" in "nice and early", it felt like the next "and" (i.e., the one before "was") needed to be separated by a comma.
I wasn't sure whether "truck driver" is restrictive or non-restrictive - I'm thinking now that it's probably restrictive, i.e., without the commas?


Query 13b

*An acquaintance had told him that a truck heading to Florina, which was owned by a mutual friend, was scheduled to leave from a nearby limestone quarry the following morning.
*
I was in two minds here - whether to place a comma before "which", as it sounds like a restrictive relative clause, but then "Florina" got in the way. Florina could also be owned here by the mutual fiend (however absurd that may sound), so I thought I'd better separate it with a comma. Did I do the right thing?

I could also drop "which was" altogether - "*.. Florina ,owned by a mutual friend.."*


----------



## nickel (Jul 8, 2013)

Hi. I think I agree with the punctuation in 13a and the reasoning behind it. But in 13b I would write:

An acquaintance had told him that a truck owned by a mutual friend and heading to Florina was scheduled to leave from a nearby limestone quarry the following morning.

In any case, I wouldn't want to get trapped in a "what does the mutual friend own?" situation.


----------



## pontios (Jul 8, 2013)

Thanks, nickel.

Some good pointers.
It makes sense to restate 13b. I'm glad that I've backed myself into the comma corner/snookered myself, as it provided an interesting example.

In 13a .. if we were to deem it a restrictive relative clause (which I think it is)

Would this be correct? ..(I've resisted restating it or using brackets, for the point of the exercise).

*John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend the truck driver, who had expected him.*
or do we lose the last comma ?

*John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend the truck driver who had expected him.*


----------



## nickel (Jul 8, 2013)

pontios said:


> *John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend the truck driver, who had expected him.*



This bit of information about the friend ("who had expected him") is not the kind of information that defines friends. It is purely supplementary. So, whether John has only one friend or it's a friend who has already been defined or is defined here by his occupation, you will need the comma:

John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend, who had expected him.
John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend Martin, who had expected him.
John got to the quarry nice and early, and was warmly greeted by his friend the truck driver, who had expected him.


----------



## pontios (Jul 9, 2013)

Thanks again, nickel.
Well explained.

Here's another one - Query 14 (I'll limit it to 20 queries)

*At other times, they would stroll along the promenade that hugs the shoreline near the famous landmark the White Tower (Lefkos Pirgos), chewing their pumpkin seeds or hot peanuts bought from the street vendors, who sat behind their mobile food stands with their tiny smoking flues.
*
Is it clear that the "tiny smoking flues" refers to the mobile food stands here (and not to the street vendors)?

The whole clause "who sat behind their mobile food stands with their tiny smoking flues" could be deemed restrictive here (describing the street vendors), so if I left out the comma before "who" it might imply that the "tiny smoking flues" refers back to the street vendors.
"with their tiny smoking flues" is also a restrictive relative clause (I think) - which describes the mobile food stands.
If I changed "their mobile food stands" to "the mobile food stands" it might clear things up a bit, but I think the sense (of the sentence) changes.


----------



## nickel (Jul 9, 2013)

I think you may need a comma before "the White Tower".
I might be tempted to say "street vendors sitting behind etc" but I wouldn't feel like another participle after "chewing".
So let's make it lighter by taking out two possessives:

At other times, they would stroll along the promenade that hugs the shoreline near the famous landmark, the White Tower (Lefkos Pirgos), chewing their pumpkin seeds or hot peanuts bought from the street vendors, who sat behind mobile food stands with tiny smoking flues.


----------



## pontios (Jul 9, 2013)

I initially thought of putting commas around "White Tower", but I changed my mind as I thought it would imply that the White Tower was the only famous landmark.
I likened it to -
I watched the movie, "The Titanic", which would imply that the Titanic was the only movie playing - whereas I watched the movie "The Titanic", implies I made a choice (between a lot of other movies).


----------



## nickel (Jul 9, 2013)

Well, the alternative might be "the famous landmark called the White Tower" if you were to put more distance between the narrator and the Tower. But I prefer the first version: it makes the Tower a familiar place, almost an inevitability.


----------



## pontios (Jul 9, 2013)

Beware of dangers lurking in long sentences (note to self).



> nickel wrote ..
> " who sat behind mobile food stands with tiny smoking flues"



Good suggestion!

What about "who sat behind food stands with their tiny smoking flues"? - I'm wondering if leaving a "their" before "tiny smoking food stands" and substituting "with" with "and" does the trick? Can we lose the last comma?
I also changed "the steet vendors" to "street vendors",

*At other times, they would stroll along the promenade that hugs the shoreline near the famous landmark the White Tower (Lefkos Pirgos), chewing their pumpkin seeds or hot peanuts bought from street vendors who sat behind mobile food stands and their tiny smoking flues.*


----------



## Philip (Jul 9, 2013)

A couple of suggestions:
1. "the famous landmark _of_ the White Tower", which would solve one comma question (cf _the church of St Peters_ and similar constructions;
2. The question of "the street vendors " or just "street vendors" is subtle. With the article it suggests to me that the writer (ok, translator) is as it were presenting these vendors as a natural, to-be-expected part of the scene, already presupposed, while without the article, it seems to suggest that the reader might or might not have expected street vendors as part of the scene - in the first case they are regarded as a 'given' of the scene, and in the second case they are not so presented.
3. I prefer "_with _their smoking flues" - we are dealing with one object here; 'and' suggests two, and took me as a reader a fraction of a second longer to process.


----------



## pontios (Jul 10, 2013)

Thanks, Philip.
I see what you're saying regarding the removal of the article (that it would make sense to someone with no expectations or a non-Greek reader).

So, invoking my "carte blanche". :)

*At other times, they would stroll along the promenade that hugs the shoreline near the famous landmark "The White Tower", chewing their pumpkin seeds or hot peanuts bought from street vendors who sat behind their mobile food stands and tempted people with their culinary delights. 
*
presto chango!

The famous landmark "of" the White Tower doesn't sound right to me (but I could be making a bad judgement call here?), and I'm resisting it.
I know the commas are expected around The White Tower - and perhaps the way to bring them into play is to state it as ..
" the city's most famous landmark, "The White Tower", ... ?


----------



## pontios (Jul 10, 2013)

Query 15/20. :) I appreciate everyone's help.

*The security measures around the prison building were so tight and the fear factor was so entrenched that the doors and windows of the prison cells were left unlocked. *

Should there be a comma after "tight"?
The sentence is basically saying that due to twin factors "A" (the security measures) and "B" (the fear factor) we have outcome "C" (no need to lock the prison doors and windows). I'm therefore thinking there's no comma in this sentence (as A and B are acting together), but I'm not sure?


----------



## nickel (Jul 10, 2013)

Hi. I wouldn't use a comma here. I would make it even more redundant by gluing the clauses closer together:

The security measures around the prison building were so tight and the fear factor was so entrenched that the doors and windows of the prison cells were left unlocked.


----------



## Philip (Jul 10, 2013)

What Nickel said.

I am decidedly unhappy with inverted commas around _The White Tower_ (further up). It is a standard name, not a nickname or coinage from which you wish to distance yourself. On "landmark of X" your instinct is probably right. It's not a common construction in the sense of X is a landmark.


----------



## pontios (Jul 11, 2013)

Thank you, nickel and Philip - duly noted.
I stand chastised! 

Most of the time I'm expecting to see a comma after a coordinating conjunction (for, and, but ..) when there's a subject/verb in the clause ( e.g.," .. , and they saw.. "), but I know there are instances, such as in query 15, where a train of thought needs to be completed and where a comma would therefore just get in the way.
Conversely, most of the time I'm not expecting to see a comma after a coordinating conjunction when the subject is missing (e.g., "... and saw..."), but I know there are instances where a comma is needed to set off the clause.

I'd really appreciate some examples that would illustrate both instances.


----------



## Philip (Jul 11, 2013)

How about this:
_From contemporary fiction (Small World by David Lodge):_
He stops again, and looks speculatively around him. It is warm and dry enough to sleep out. Spying a haystack in a field to his right, Persse climbs over the gate and makes towards it. A startled donkey rises to its feet and canters away. He throws down his grip, kicks off his shoes and stretches out in the hay, staring up …

... where the first sentence has a comma (despite being short, grammatically uncomplicated, and having the same subject for both verbs).
In the second sentence (and later ones) there is no comma before _and_, although there could be. Putting a comma would have the effect of making it two ideas rather than a single one.
Would you like examples from other genres?


----------



## pontios (Jul 12, 2013)

Thank you, Philip.
The first sentence was a good example. The comma here before the "and" (with the missing subject) was the instance I was particularly looking for (I suppose we covered the other one in query 15).

It's as if "again" is the precursor to the comma, making the case for a comma.

I used to read without paying much attention to commas - I'm a changed man (I hope for the better). :)


----------



## pontios (Jul 18, 2013)

Καλημέρα. 

Query 16/20.

*One night Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother Stefania Stanescu over so they could start to plan the wedding together.*

I've placed the commas as follows -

One night, Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother, Stefania Stanescu, over so they could start to plan the wedding together.

But for some reason I'm thinking that there should be a pause (another comma after "over") - although without the name Stefania Stanescu you wouldn't place one there - 
i.e., without the name it would just be ..
One night, Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother over so they could start to plan the wedding together (if we decided to place a comma after "night" - it's probably optional).

It's just that after the name and comma, we have the clause .. " , over so they could start to plan the wedding together... i.e., the clause isn't starting with "so", but with "over so".
I hope my query is clear. :s

Also, I'm trying to decide between "start to plan the wedding together" and .."start planning the wedding together"?
(It's probably six of one and half a dozen of the other?)


----------



## pontios (Jul 18, 2013)

Just adding - 
After some more thought, I've decided to place the comma after "over", after all, as I realised that the first clause is (effectively) .. "Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother, Stefania Stanescu, over " (as in they invited "her" over) - i.e., the second clause starts with "so" and not "over so", as I initially thought.

Much ado about nothing! .. sorry.


----------



## nickel (Jul 18, 2013)

Ahem. I could envisage the whole sentence without a single comma (but then I'm a minimalist). I definitely think you do not need the one after "One night".

The comma before this so-clause is a comma often dropped in both English and Greek. In this case, I don't think anyone will read "over" as part of the so-clause. However, particles of phrasal verbs sound awkward whenever long objects put too much distance between the verb and the particle. I might even think of replacing "over" with "to come to their house".


----------



## Philip (Jul 18, 2013)

If you want a comma after _over_, you could omit the commas around the mother's name, otherwise _over _looks a bit isolated from any of the syntax it belongs to, and It takes a microsecond longer to work out what is happening.  I generally put too many commas in my first draft and then remove some, a bit like thinning out the onions in your vegetable patch. :)


----------



## pontios (Jul 19, 2013)

Thank you, nickel and Philip.

You're right, I should really be avoiding the comma before "so" (I only resorted to it to separate the two clauses, even though it didn't feel right).

So it's either -

a. One night, Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother, Stefania Stanescu, to their house so they could start to plan the wedding together.
or
b. One night, Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother Stefania Stanescu to their house so they could start to plan the wedding together.
or 
c. One night, Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother Stefania Stanescu over so they could start to plan the wedding together.

I think we can get away without the commas around the name as it's a given (it's already been established) that she only has one adoptive mother (so we can discount the possibility she has lesbian adoptive parents - it's probably analogous to my wife X, providing you're not a polygamist).

Actually, I'll pick b. as it combines both your ideas! :)
*One night, Jim and his family invited Maria and her adoptive mother Stefania Stanescu to their house so they could start to plan the wedding together.*


----------



## pontios (Jul 25, 2013)

Sorry, just me again.
Have I placed the commas correctly (I wasn't sure if there should be one before "before")?

Query 17/20

*He then took a wide route back, passing a few villages on the way, and managed to transport the deadly cargo right under the nose of the Germans, before successfully delivering it to the partisans at Agio Bartholomeo.*

Actually, something just occurred to me - maybe it should be to the partisans "in" (rather than "at"?).
Normally I'd use "in" here, but for some reason I've used "at" during the first draft of my translation (and I'm wondering why now?).

Query 17b/20 (this sentence follows the one above.)
Are the commas placed correctly (I wasn't sure if there should be one before "of course")?

*A group of partisans were there following George and the valuable cargo, in the shadow of the night, ready to step in at any sign of danger, of course. *


----------



## nickel (Jul 25, 2013)

Comma before ‘before’
You don’t normally need a comma before a time clause. You need it after the time clause if it comes before the main clause. This is the standard rule with most secondary clauses, and it’s a reasonable, practical rule:
The kids wanted to go to the pool after we ate…
After we ate, the kids wanted to go to the pool…

In the first case, the conjunction makes it clear where the clause begins. In the second example, put a comma to show where the secondary clause ends and the main clause begins, or the reader may have the temporary problem of interpreting ‘after we ate the kids’. Or often you wouldn’t know where an adverb belongs.

However, in your case (17/20) the comma is not absolutely superfluous as you have a longish place adverb before the time adverbial. It’s a good pause, it gives the reader the opportunity to see things in their proper perspective.

Leave ‘at’.

In 17b I’d get rid of ‘of course’ altogether. If you keep it, keep the comma with it.


----------



## pontios (Jul 26, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.
Excellently explained.

I can get rid of "of course", which was there just to emphasise that the partisans were (of course) carefully guarding George (who was only 15 years old) and the valuable cargo (comprising detonators and explosives, which was dropped by British planes to lend support to the resistance) throughout - i.e., there was nothing left to chance.


----------



## nickel (Jul 26, 2013)

pontios said:


> Thank you, nickel.


I must be doing something right. :) (Talking about the comma above...)


----------



## pontios (Jul 27, 2013)

nickel said:


> I must be doing something right. :) (Talking about the comma here..."Thank you, nickel".)



Now now nickel! ;)

*Query 18/20*

Two versions of a short sentence.

*They left revived and rested in the morning.*

*In the morning they left revived and rested.*


Can we get away without commas?
Without commas, the first version could be misinterpreted as - They left revived ... and rested in the morning. (even though "revived" and "rested" may be considered concomitant words)
The second can probably get away without commas?


----------



## Philip (Jul 28, 2013)

...or a third version,

*They left in the morning, revived and rested.*

Your first version did not cause me any confusion, but the second version is unambiguouser, if I may put it thusly. :)


----------



## pontios (Jul 28, 2013)

Thanks, Philip. :)

Query 19/20

Are the commas placed correctly?

I'm trying to decide between -

*Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service, and once that's completed you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.*
or
*Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service and once that's completed, you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.*

I feel a pause is needed before "and" (and to make sense of the second clause, I'm treating "once that's completed" as if it's a synonym or a substitute for "then").

I'm sure there are other possibilities here, too.


----------



## nickel (Jul 28, 2013)

"Once it's completed" is a time clause right in the middle of things, so it should be placed within commas. Another comma before "and" may be too much but is not out of the questions. So:

Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service, and, once that's completed, you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.
or
Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service and, once that's completed, you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.

As the time clause is short and does not cause confusion, there'll be many that won't need the commas there, so you may have two more options:

Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service, and once that's completed you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.
or
Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service and once that's completed you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow. (for the absolute minimalist)

This one, however, is wrong because it is unbalanced:
Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service and once that's completed, you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.

My preference:
Fred, you will soon be conscripted for your military service and, once that's completed, you have an obligation to your dead father to do away with his murderer, Joe Blow.


----------



## pontios (Jul 29, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.
That's what I call a thorough explanation.
I don't know why I came up with my second option; it's unbalanced, as you pointed out, and (besides) I know you can't start the second clause with "you" immediately preceded by a comma (if I was treating "once that's completed" as a short time clause - i.e., as if it's "then").


----------



## nickel (Jul 29, 2013)

It's time for a quick revision, I think. This looks like a good page:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/


----------



## pontios (Jul 29, 2013)

Query 20a.

Here's an ambiguous one -

*Achilleas was tipsy for the first time and ended up dancing on the tables while his friends clapped to his every gyration.*

Am I right in thinking that if "while" meant "at the same time" there's no comma here, whereas if it meant "whereas" there's a comma. Does the presence or absence of a comma determine the sense here?

Would you use a comma before "while" here?

Last but not least -

Query 20/20

What happens if a sentence ends with "though" or "in the meantime" or "after all" or "besides", or "soon", "then".

Are all these sentences correct ?

I like his car, though. 
I'll be heading that way, in the meantime.
You are a champion, after all.
I'll be heading your way, soon. (this probably doesn't need a comma).
I'll be heading your way, then.

What about "here"/"there"?

Refer to the example I gave there.
Refer to the example there.

The example you gave here illustrates the point.


----------



## nickel (Jul 30, 2013)

Some people tend to put a comma before _while _when it starts a clause of contrast, but meaning is not determined by the comma. This is not such a well-kept rule. In any case, your _while _in Query 20a does not need comma.

Some of the adverbs of Query 20 are often separated with commas.
In the meantime: put commas if the phrase is at the beginning or in the middle, e.g. 
In the meantime, I’ll be heading that way.
but
I'll be heading that way in the meantime.

As you’ve said, _soon _does not need a comma – unless it is there as an afterthought. With _here _and _there_, the comma makes the adverb a last-minute addition. E.g.

Place your signature here. (The syntax requires an adverb right from the start.)
I want you to sign the document, here and here. (Either with or without a comma. Normally without. The difference is, I hope, clear.)


----------



## pontios (Jul 30, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.

Your help has been invaluable; I think I've learnt/learned a fair bit.
(and thank you to everyone else who posted in this thread)

Final Query 
20z/20 

In this sentence, I put a comma before "as" (as I felt a mental breather was needed). Did I do the right thing?

("it" refers to their escape plan)

*He was determined to carry it out that very night, as his wife had managed to smuggle in a palm sized pair of side-cutters when she returned with the baby earlier that day.*

Whereas, if the sentence was shorter (e.g., as below), there's obviously no comma before "as".
*He was determined to carry it out that very night as his wife had managed to smuggle in a pair of side-cutters.*


----------



## nickel (Jul 30, 2013)

I don't think I'd make an issue of that comma. But I think it's time you started the "Hyphen workshop" thread — starting with why there should be a hyphen between "palm" and "sized", while "side-cutters" could easily become "sidecutters".


----------



## pontios (Sep 2, 2013)

Συγγνώμη για την αναβιώσει αυτού του νήματος, αλλά έχω δυο απορίες (σχετικά με τα δυο παραδείγματα παρακάτω), και έτσι αναγκάστηκα να αθετήσω τον λόγο μου.

Χρειάζεται να μπουν κόμματα πριν από τα υπογραμμισμένα "and";


*Ιn the ensuing skirmish, and after some fierce fighting, the Greek guerrillas were forced to surrender and were captured.*

*The irony was that the captured guerrillas were in fact fighting for the communist cause in the Greek civil war and opposing the Greek army.
*
(I don't expect commas - just checking to make sure).

Edit .. here's another sentence I just came across.

*Yiannos joined the communist guerrillas immediately after the partisans disbanded and so remained in the mountains.*


----------



## nickel (Sep 2, 2013)

I would actually change the first one to:

*In the ensuing skirmish and after some fierce fighting the Greek guerrillas were forced to surrender, and were captured.*

But I often feel these are matters of personal preference and I don't even consider it necessary to explain my preference.


----------



## pontios (Sep 3, 2013)

Yes, it reads well.
Here's another version that is probably okay too, which I might settle for?

In the ensuing skirmish and after some fierce fighting, the Greek guerrillas were forced to surrender and were captured.


----------



## pidyo (Feb 24, 2015)




----------



## Marinos (Feb 24, 2015)

Α ωραία, το χρησιμοποιώ και γω το κόμμα της Οξφόρδης (αν και στα ελληνικά το λέω, το κόμμα του Πετρόπουλου).


----------



## nickel (Feb 24, 2015)

Στα ελληνικά έχουμε πει ότι δεν το βάζουμε. 

Το παράδειγμα στο βίντεο έχει λάθος. Αν ήθελε να πει ότι η Ελισάβετ και ο Ομπάμα είναι ακροβάτες, η επεξηγηματική φράση θα είχε κόμμα και στα δύο άκρα της: I invited the acrobats, President Obama and the Queen of England, to a party. Και αν κάποιος φοβόταν την παρεξήγηση, θα έβαζε κάτι άλλο αντί για κόμματα, παρένθεση ή μεγάλη παύλα*: I invited the acrobats—President Obama and the Queen of England—to a party. 

Εκτενέστερη παρουσίαση εδώ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma#Resolving_ambiguity


* Ελπίζω να καταλάβατε το λάθος. Η πρόταση θα έπρεπε να λέει:
...θα έβαζε κάτι άλλο αντί για κόμματα, π.χ. παρένθεση ή μεγάλη παύλα
... θα έβαζε κάτι άλλο αντί για κόμματα (π.χ. παρένθεση ή μεγάλη παύλα)


----------



## daeman (Feb 24, 2015)

...
A Handy Guide for Using the Oxford Comma

*κόμμα πριν το «κλπ»
*
"My heroes are my parents, Superman and Wonder Woman." 

Oxford Comma - Vampire Weekend


----------



## Earion (Mar 11, 2015)

Comma Queen, Series Première, με βασίλισσα του κόμματος την Μαίρη Νόρρις, επιμελήτρια ύλης του _New Yorker_. Πρώτο στη σειρά βιντεάκι. Θα παρακολουθήσω και τα υπόλοιπα.

Comma Queen: Possesed (March 27, 2015)

Comma Queen: Let's Get Restrictive (April 8, 2015)

Mad Dash
Comma Queen Mary Norris clarifies the difference between the hyphen (-), the en dash (–), and the em dash (—).

Mad Dash, The Sequel
Dickens doubled them, Dickinson juggled them. Everybody loves those crazy dashes. Here’s a primer on how to get the most out of your hyphen key.

The Semicolon; or Mastering the Giant Comma


Mary Norris began working at _The New Yorker_ in 1978, and has been a query proofreader at the magazine since 1993. Her first book is “Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen” (Norton).


----------



## cougr (Mar 17, 2017)

*For Want of a Comma, or... when the lack of a comma costs $10 million (ouch!)*

A class-action lawsuit about overtime pay for truck drivers hinged entirely on a debate that has bitterly divided friends, families and foes: The dreaded — or totally necessary — Oxford comma, perhaps the most polarizing of punctuation marks.

What ensued in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and in a 29-page court decision handed down on Monday, was an exercise in high-stakes grammar pedantry that could cost a dairy company in Portland, Me., an estimated $10 million. 
(more at the NY Times)


----------



## nickel (Mar 17, 2017)

Προς το παρόν: :up:


----------



## pontios (Mar 17, 2017)

thanks, cougar.
This article explains it more succinctly ... and there's a gerund missing too (distributing vs distribution), that added to the ambiguity.

https://qz.com/932004/the-oxford-co...ling-on-overtime-pay-for-dairy-truck-drivers/


----------



## dharvatis (Nov 24, 2020)




----------



## nickel (Nov 25, 2020)

Anti-vaxxers: We hope to avoid the Oxford coma...


----------

