Tell me more ×
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.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and some large banks agreed to pay scores of retailers—from giant Publix Supermarkets Inc. to an interior-design store in Minnesota—more than $6 billion to settle a long-running lawsuit, in a pact that also permits merchants to charge more to customers who pay with credit cards. — WSJ

How would the meaning change if that comma between "lawsuit" and "in a pact" is removed?

Another example:

  • The two sides have agreed to stop fighting in a pact that allows further peace talks.
  • The two sides have agreed to stop fighting, in a pact that allows further peace talks.
share|improve this question
1  
Also see Charge more to customers, a Nortonn S question – jwpat7 Jul 16 '12 at 16:37

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote

It would not change the meaning at all in this case. Removing the comma could conceivably shift the referent of "in a pact" from "agreed" to "lawsuit", except that it makes no sense to consider a lawsuit as part of a pact, at least in this context.

Edit to answer OP's comment question: Example where the meaning could arguably change:

  • The kids agreed to stop fighting after dinner. They have been fighting after dinner...but now they have agreed to stop.

  • The kids agreed to stop fighting, after dinner. They fought at any time, and it was not until after dinner that they agreed to stop.

share|improve this answer
I added another example in my original post. So, these are the same? – Nortonn S Jul 16 '12 at 16:54
Arguably clues as to the linguistic competence of the writer are part of the meaning (or, at least, "meta-meaning"). In such a convoluted sentence as OP's example, I think any competent writer would include the comma, so the lack of it would tell me the writer wasn't actually very good at his job. – FumbleFingers Jul 16 '12 at 17:08
Thank you for your reply, JeffSahol! For the kids fighting example, I see they both could mean that 1) the agreement took place after dinner, or 2) the agreement was for a post-dinner stoppage of the fighting. Which sentence should have which meaning? – Nortonn S Jul 16 '12 at 17:52
1  
Both of your examples could mean that the kids agreed that they would continue to fight until they had had dinner, when they would stop. – Andrew Leach Jul 16 '12 at 18:29
Agreed, @AndrewLeach. There is no perfect example (one that is unambiguously defined by the presence or absence of the comma), ... I was just trying to help the OP with his questions. – JeffSahol Jul 16 '12 at 18:55
up vote 1 down vote

It would change the meaning entirely in this case. Removing the comma would conceivably shift the referent of "in a pact" from "agreed" to "lawsuit", except that it makes no sense to consider a lawsuit as part of a pact, at least in this context.

share|improve this answer

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.