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.

Is there a comma after and/or before "though" in a sentence?

For example, I am talking about a method that is very slow. At the end of the paragraph I say:

We will see in the following sections though there is a workaround to reduce the exponential explosion of the computational time.

share|improve this question
1  
I would rather use although at the beginning of the sentence, or not use though at all. –  kiamlaluno Aug 20 '12 at 13:07
    
That after though is wrong. remove it, then the sentence makes sense. –  Matt Эллен Oct 3 '12 at 9:15
    
Er, I think the "that" was needed (or is at least preferable). The "that" marker helps the reader parse the sentence correctly. –  F.E. Jan 16 at 23:27

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

However, as we will see in the following sections, there is a workaround to reduce the exponential explosion of the computational time.

is, I think, a better way to express what you are trying to say. If you wanted to use the word "though", I believe you would put commas both before and after the word.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree with you. However, I think I am overusing the word "however" in my document. I have to find some alternatives! Thanks –  Felipe Aguirre Aug 20 '12 at 13:43
1  
@FelipeAguirre: In your particular sentence you can simply drop the 'though' without any other changes. It is unnecessary. –  Jim Aug 20 '12 at 15:05
    
I think that he wishes to have some way to express the word though, in it's meaning "despite the fact that". –  Michael Blaustein Aug 20 '12 at 15:29
    
You are both right. But my question served a double purpose, to know how to use though in this particular phrase and in other phrases in general. Maybe I was not precise enough... –  Felipe Aguirre Aug 20 '12 at 15:40
    
We will see in the following sections, though, that there is a workaround to reduce the exponential explosion of the computational time. –  Michael Blaustein Aug 20 '12 at 15:48

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.