Cover via Amazon
The
comma, and how to use
it.
Perhaps I should start
this piece by determining what a comma actually is: a comma is defined as a
punctuation mark that indicates a pause between parts of a
sentence, or which
separates items in a list or groups of figures, etc. In speech, we pause when
there's a natural break in what we're saying, or when we need to isolate the
next words from those preceding them in order to make our message clear.
There's a movement toward
open punctuation at present, promoting the omission of commas in cases in which
they're considered optional. Whilst such an idea may have some merit, writers
and editors need to retain commas, and sometimes even insert additional ones,
in order to clarify meaning.
Let me give some examples
of how important the humble comma can be.
There is, of course, the
famous example shown by
Lynne Truss in the title of her excellent book, '
Eats
shoots and leaves.' and its alternative version, 'Eats, shoots and
leaves.'
The two sentences have exactly
the same words but the meanings are poles apart. In the first, we have a bald
statement that the subject (unstated in this case) lives on a diet of shoots
and leaves; a vegetarian, of course. In the second, we have an altogether more
dangerous individual who has a meal, then produces and uses a firearm before
moving away.
'She sees all the advantages
and wonders about how they might make more of these qualities.'
In this example, the pairing of 'advantages'
with 'wonders', which can act as both verb and noun, makes the first part of
the sentence sound as though the subject, she, observes all the advantages and
wonders. In fact, of course, the writer does not intend the reader to make this
connection and the sentence would be much clearer if written thus: 'She sees
all the advantages, and wonders about how they might make more of these
qualities.' We now know, with certainty,
that 'she' is both observing and speculating.
It is this ability of the
comma to remove ambiguity that makes it an essential tool in the writer's
armoury.
'You should be grateful
for the money and rest.'
Does the writer want his
subject to show gratitude for cash and repose? Or does he actually expect
gratitude for the money alone and then suggest that his subject take a rest?
The sentence can be read to mean either. A comma would clarify the latter: 'You
should be grateful for the money, and rest.' This is now clear. As for the
former case, a slight restructuring of the sentence will again make the meaning
clear: 'You should be grateful for rest and the money.' Again, the meaning is
now clear.
'The world contains far
too many people using artificial means to produce children and far too many orphans.'
Here we have the slightly
sinister suggestion that people are using artificial means to create orphans.
Does this mean some people are actively killing parents so that some children
will be
orphaned? I think the writer means something entirely different: 'The
world contains far too many people using artificial means to create children, and
far too many orphans.'
Again, this
sentence would make more sense and be unambiguous if structured in a better
way: 'The world contains far too many orphans, and too many people who use
artificial means to create children.' You may, or may not, agree with the
sentiment, but I hope you agree with the clarity of the alternative structures.
'Marilyn opened the door in her nightdress and shrieked as the chill air
blew it up her legs.'
It's unlikely Marilyn's nightdress had a door, of course. But the writer
has described the garment as having one. Also, was the door or the nightdress
blown up her legs? Not at all clear, is it? Perhaps a better understanding of
what actually happened would be derived from: 'Marilyn, in her nightdress,
opened the door and shrieked as the chill air blew it up her legs.' Even here,
though it's now clear that the nightdress and the door are two separate items,
it remains ambiguous whether the chill air blew the garment or the portal up
her legs. It isn't always a lack of commas that renders a sentence unclear.
Perhaps it might be better stated as: 'Marilyn opened the door and shrieked as
the chill air blew her nightdress up her legs.' Here the comma has been ditched
but the structure of the sentence makes everything clear.
'Another politician named Nick Clegg broke his word and allowed his
partners to introduce tuition fees against all the pre-election promises he had
made.'
How many politicians named 'Nick Clegg' are there? And, in what way can
you introduce tuition fees for pre-election promises? The sentence is poor and lacks
clarity. Let's try: 'Nick Clegg, another politician, broke his word and allowed
his partners to introduce tuition fees, against all the pre-election promises
he had made.' We now understand that the writer is lumping Nick Clegg with
other politicians and pointing the finger of blame at him, regarding tuition
fees, because he had previously promised not to permit such a thing to happen.
I could go on with examples, and I
could talk about the 'Oxford' comma, but I think you've probably got the
general idea by now. I don't want to bore you.
23 October 2001 The first
iPod was released by Apple. Can it really only be ten years ago?
Image via Wikipedia
