Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does this sentence require a comma before including?

He has written on a range of moral issues including poverty, globalization, and euthanasia.

share|improve this question
    
This is one of those hateful gerund clauses that is inherently ambiguous, so it always requires a comma and the understanding that it means the items that follow the word including are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list. If what you want is an exhaustive list, then instead of including, you must say either "a range of moral issues: poverty, globalization, and euthanasia" or "He has written on the moral issues of poverty, globalization, and euthanasia" -- "a range of" then becomes a pointless verbosity. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't use unnecessary words. –  user21497 Mar 22 '13 at 7:22
    
@BillFranke: I agree, especially about the comma and the non-definitivity/-ness, although I consider including a participle here. –  Cerberus Mar 23 '13 at 20:58
    
@Cerberus: You may be right that it's a participle rather than a gerund, so I should change the term to /-ing/-word clauses. Then whatever its part of speech is has no bearing on its meaning or stylistic fitness. –  user21497 Mar 24 '13 at 0:52
    
@BillFranke: You could call them that, or participial phrases, or -ing modifiers? I like to distinguish between -ing forms that mean "that/which/who include(s)" and those meaning "the act of including / to include", but I understand there are some who somehow prefer using one word for both -ing forms. [You could replace the -ing forms in my sentence with that mean and to prefer, respectively...see how nicely that works?] –  Cerberus Mar 24 '13 at 1:29
add comment

1 Answer

It requires a comma because including is the subordinating conjunction for the dependent clause. Notice that if you DON'T put a comma there, you are essentially qualifying the moral issues upon which he has written as only those that include poverty ("moral issues including poverty"), in which case "globalization, and euthanasia" becomes one of two things: either a meaningless fragment, or the last two elements in a linking sequence that was not intended ("1. a range of moral issues including poverty, 2. globalization, and 3. euthanasia").

share|improve this answer
    
+1 Agreed, but it is a participle, not a conjunction. –  Cerberus Mar 23 '13 at 20:59
    
@Cerberus But just as with many parts of speech it can qualify as more than one part of speech, and although I can't absolutely swear to this, I think it must qualify as the subordinating conjunction for the dependent clause in this case, because we have a dependent clause which is conjoined to the independent clause, and something conjoins it, and "including" is the word which conjoins it, so I don't think we can say that it isn't the subordinating conjunction. –  John M. Landsberg Sep 21 '13 at 15:43
    
It could also be “a range of moral issues that include 1) poverty, 2) globalisation, and 3) euthanasia”, though I'll readily admit that I can think of no moral issues that include all these things. But it seems odd to me to refer to globalisation as a moral issue, anyway. –  Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 2 '13 at 9:04
    
Setting aside the point that the debate over whether the use of "including" creates an ambiguity was neither invited by nor relevant to the question posed, I completely disagree that it creates an ambiguity. "Including" has a clear meaning, and the fact that some writers may use it sloppily or some readers may infer the possibility of a complete list should not dissuade any writer from using it properly. –  ChicAggie Jan 15 at 15:28
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.