Comma workshop

[pontios]

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]

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.

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.
...

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.

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. ;)

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

This looks disjointed.

 

[pontios]

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]

...
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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pontios]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).