Comma questions

CathleenT · Mar 17, 2015

I just got some feedback from a beta, and we differ on comma usage. Don't worry; I'm not going to reopen the Oxford comma question. I know that one's a gray area. I'm trying to find out if these are, too.

So, as I'm sure you're all aware, independent clauses separated by a conjunction get a comma. My understanding is that the length of the independent clause doesn't matter.

So, I wrote:

Hans agreed, and I tossed him up again.

Beta believes it should be:

Hans agreed and I tossed him up again.

I think I'm right, but I wanted to check.

Second question - commas before because.

I wrote:

I'm staying with Patrick, because he's my brother now.

Beta believes it should be:

I'm staying with Patrick because he's my brother now.

Which is correct?

Thanks so much in advance.

pandaponies · Mar 17, 2015

Question 1: Technically commas before coordinating conjunctions joining two independent clauses are correct, but in modern usage they are frequently omitted as long as both sentences are short. Either is correct but the comma is not strictly necessary.

Question 2: No, there is no comma before "because." No comma after a main clause followed by a subordinate conjunction, generally speaking.

KidCassandra · Mar 17, 2015

I tend to write by ear, so I couldn't really tell you what the textbook answer is to these questions, but I can tell you what I think.

CathleenT said:
So, I wrote:

Hans agreed, and I tossed him up again.

Beta believes it should be:

Hans agreed and I tossed him up again.

I think I'm right, but I wanted to check.

I can see why you used the comma, as technically these are two independent clauses joined with a conjunction, as I understand it. But when one of the clauses is that short (and two words is about as short as it can get, right?) I sometimes leave the comma out for aesthetic purposes. In this case, however, I'm digging the comma. Helps separate the two thoughts for me.

CathleenT said:
I wrote:

I'm staying with Patrick, because he's my brother now.

Beta believes it should be:

I'm staying with Patrick because he's my brother now.

Which is correct?

Thanks so much in advance.

In this case, I'd leave out the comma because the thought progresses smoothly.

Hopefully someone with a firmer grasp of The Rules will be along soon to help us out. For now, these are my two cents.

ETA: Thanks, pandaponies, for making that clearer than I could.

pandaponies · Mar 17, 2015

^No, the comma is not correct with the subordinate clause placed as is. If you move it to the beginning of the sentence, it becomes an introductory dependent clause, which is what makes it take a comma there.

cornflake · Mar 17, 2015

CathleenT said:
I just got some feedback from a beta, and we differ on comma usage. Don't worry; I'm not going to reopen the Oxford comma question. I know that one's a gray area. I'm trying to find out if these are, too.

So, as I'm sure you're all aware, independent clauses separated by a conjunction get a comma. My understanding is that the length of the independent clause doesn't matter.

So, I wrote:

Hans agreed, and I tossed him up again.

Beta believes it should be:

Hans agreed and I tossed him up again.

I think I'm right, but I wanted to check.

Second question - commas before because.

I wrote:

I'm staying with Patrick, because he's my brother now.

Beta believes it should be:

I'm staying with Patrick because he's my brother now.

Which is correct?

Thanks so much in advance.

You're correct in both. Both have two independent, though short, clauses and you're putting the comma before the conjunction or what serves as one.

You're wrong, however, about the Oxford comma. THERE IS NO GREY. THERE IS ONLY THE OXFORD COMMA.

Abisha · Mar 17, 2015

What reads best for me is comma with the first one, and no comma with the second one. I'm not sure which is technically correct, but that flows the best in my opinion.

chompers · Mar 17, 2015

CathleenT said:
I just got some feedback from a beta, and we differ on comma usage. Don't worry; I'm not going to reopen the Oxford comma question. I know that one's a gray area. I'm trying to find out if these are, too.

So, as I'm sure you're all aware, independent clauses separated by a conjunction get a comma. My understanding is that the length of the independent clause doesn't matter.

So, I wrote:

Hans agreed, and I tossed him up again.

Beta believes it should be:

Hans agreed and I tossed him up again.

I think I'm right, but I wanted to check.

Second question - commas before because.

I wrote:

I'm staying with Patrick, because he's my brother now.

Beta believes it should be:

I'm staying with Patrick because he's my brother now.

Which is correct?

Thanks so much in advance.

Technically you're both right. But who's wrong would depend on the context you were going for.

For instance, in the second example what you're saying is:

You:
Patrick is my brother now, so it's okay if I stay with him.

Beta:
Patrick being my brother now is causing me to stay with him. (Like maybe he got custodial rights or something?)

CathleenT · Mar 17, 2015

Chompers, could you expand on that?

I understood what you said, I just don't understand why.

pandaponies · Mar 17, 2015

pandaponies said:
No, the comma is not correct with the subordinate clause placed as is. If you move it to the beginning of the sentence, it becomes an introductory dependent clause, which is what makes it take a comma there.

*will repeat self ad nauseam until it sinks in*

There is no comma before a subordinate (dependent) clause at the end of a sentence. There is a comma before an introductory dependent clause.

I will stay with Patrick because he is my brother.
Because he is my brother, I will stay with Patrick.
I will stay with Patrick even though he is an enormous jerk.
Even though he is an enormous jerk, I will stay with him.
I'll stay with Patrick while you work.
While you work, I'll stay with Patrick.

etc.

If you would naturally put a breath there and you REALLY want that to reflect in your writing, you can add a comma. But it'll still be wrong.

cornflake · Mar 17, 2015

I'm staying with Patrick. He's my brother now.

They're independent clauses.

I'm staying with Patrick, and he's my brother now. <-- same difference, well, depending on the meaning of 'now,' I suppose.

chompers · Mar 17, 2015

CathleenT said:
Chompers, could you expand on that?

I understood what you said, I just don't understand why.

Sorry, can you clarify? I don't understand what you're asking for.

pandaponies · Mar 17, 2015

@cornflake - No. A coordinating conjunction is not a subordinating conjunction and does not follow the same rules. Adding a subordinating conjunction to a clause makes it dependent, period. "He is my brother" is an independent clause. "Because he is my brother" is not.

pandaponies · Mar 17, 2015

Here, I googled for you all:
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm

Sorry for being snippy, but it frustrates me enormously when simple grammatical questions are clouded by subjectivity when there is a hard, cut-and-dried answer just a Google search away.

chompers · Mar 17, 2015

Sometimes you do use a comma before "because."

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-to-use-a-comma-before-because

guttersquid · Mar 17, 2015

pandaponies said:
*will repeat self ad nauseam until it sinks in*

There is no comma before a subordinate (dependent) clause at the end of a sentence.

chompers said:
Sometimes you do use a comma before "because."

Chompers is right. Consider the difference between these two sentences, one with a comma, the other without.

I would not chop down that tree because it is diseased.

I would not chop down that tree, because it is diseased.

Clarity of meaning is what determines whether or not to use a comma.

pandaponies · Mar 18, 2015

Even Perdue OWL specifically says, "15. Don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast)."

I STRONGLY disagree that the type of sentences you're providing as examples (edit: or the OP's) suffer from such extreme contrast or ambiguity that promoting a comma as a universal solution is appropriate, especially given that most of them will be situated within a clarifying context in any real-world scenario (fiction, conversation, what have you). I did say "generally speaking" in my original post because I recognize that a tiny minority of the time, the comma is allowed (I certainly wouldn't say required, but allowed). This is the exception, not the rule. The rule, about which the OP asked--"commas before because"--is "no comma." Anyone who would like to disagree with this general statement is welcome to. They're also going to be incorrect 99% of the time, and I have nothing further to say on that matter.

King Neptune · Mar 18, 2015

CathleenT said:
I just got some feedback from a beta, and we differ on comma usage. Don't worry; I'm not going to reopen the Oxford comma question. I know that one's a gray area. I'm trying to find out if these are, too.

So, as I'm sure you're all aware, independent clauses separated by a conjunction get a comma. My understanding is that the length of the independent clause doesn't matter.

So, I wrote:

Hans agreed, and I tossed him up again.

Beta believes it should be:

Hans agreed and I tossed him up again.

I think I'm right, but I wanted to check.

Second question - commas before because.

I wrote:

I'm staying with Patrick, because he's my brother now.

Beta believes it should be:

I'm staying with Patrick because he's my brother now.

Which is correct?

Thanks so much in advance.

You are correct in both cases, and it isn't even gray. The clauses are all independent clauses with a subject and a verb and they are supposed to be separated by comma and conjunction.

Find any ordinary grammar book or website and instruct your beta to study basic grammar.

King Neptune · Mar 18, 2015

pandaponies said:
Even Perdue OWL specifically says, "15. Don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast)."

I STRONGLY disagree that the type of sentences you're providing as examples (edit: or the OP's) suffer from such extreme contrast or ambiguity that promoting a comma as a universal solution is appropriate, especially given that most of them will be situated within a clarifying context in any real-world scenario (fiction, conversation, what have you). I did say "generally speaking" in my original post because I recognize that a tiny minority of the time, the comma is allowed (I certainly wouldn't say required, but allowed). This is the exception, not the rule. The rule, about which the OP asked--"commas before because"--is "no comma." Anyone who would like to disagree with this general statement is welcome to. They're also going to be incorrect 99% of the time, and I have nothing further to say on that matter.

Don't use a comma with a subordinate clause, but a comma should be used with an independent clause; that is a clause with a subject and a verb.

rule 3b here:
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp
rules 2 and box under rule 4
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

Chase · Mar 18, 2015

Compassion for a “rule” shouldn’t be confused with correctness, and 99% of unsubstantiated statistics are often suspect.

Although “When you attach a subordinate clause at the end of a main clause, you will generally use no punctuation . . .” is true, “generally” means there’s room for optional comma use.

Here are five examples to support keeping options open for necessary commas to set off trailing subordinate clauses:

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/5-calls-for-a-comma-before-“because”/

Maryn · Mar 18, 2015

[As a writer, you gotta love a thread where hackles are raised over comma usage.]

Lauram6123 · Mar 18, 2015

Maryn said:
[As a writer, you gotta love a thread where hackles are raised over comma usage.]

That's why I clicked on this thread. I love a comma fight. :popcorn:

Dennis E. Taylor · Mar 18, 2015

Lauram6123 said:
That's why I clicked on this thread. I love a comma fight.

If we were all in the same room, would we be waving wands at each other, and trying to choke each other with the force?

Duncan J Macdonald · Mar 18, 2015

Angry Guy said:
If we were all in the same room, would we be waving wands at each other, and trying to choke each other with the force?

Do, or do not. There is no try.

-- Yoda

pandaponies · Mar 18, 2015

King Neptune said:
Don't use a comma with a subordinate clause, but a comma should be used with an independent clause; that is a clause with a subject and a verb.

rule 3b here:
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp
rules 2 and box under rule 4
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

A surbordinate clause IS by definition a dependent clause. Adding the subordinating conjunction makes it a dependent clause, period. Your examples are coordinating conjunctions. I already talked about the difference earlier in this thread.

I would totally be trying to choke people with the Force if they weren't shielded by the safety of their computer screens. I feel like I'm talking to a wall half the time here.

Nod of acknowledgement to Chase re: keeping options open, but statements like "you need a comma before a subordinate clause because it's an independent clause" are just plain wrong and WTF-worthy.

guttersquid · Mar 18, 2015

King Neptune said:
Don't use a comma with a subordinate clause, but a comma should be used with an independent clause; that is a clause with a subject and a verb.

A clause is not independent just because it contains a subject and verb. To be independent, a clause must express a complete thought, otherwise it's a fragment.

Comma questions

I write

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

learning how to BIC

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

practical experience, FTW

I write

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

practical experience, FTW

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

I agree with Roxxsmom.

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

Baaa!

Get it off! It burns!

Plotting! Not Plodding!

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

I agree with Roxxsmom.