Comma workshop

[nickel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.