Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

The first one is best, because John is a name and terrified is an adjective describing John. If you don't add a comma, then you're naming him Terrified John. If you need a grammatical explanation (the rule), then I'll let the other people explain.


4

I would say it is correct, and while it is arguably optional, I think in this case it is better left in, especially because there is an English idiom, 'sour grapes', which roughly means someone speaking or acting negatively due to jealousy.


4

A comma represents the end of a breath group, with associated intonation and pause. If you don't end a breath group after "edges", it is perfectly grammatical, but parses as These constraints give rise to [a graph with three edges as shown in Figure 1]. which implies that it is the three edges that are shown in Figure 1, rather than the (more usual) ...


4

This is not a clause, but an adverbial phrase. According to most style guides, the comma is optional after an introductory adverbial phrase, but it is more often included than not.


3

Neither one of your sentences is correct: you are attempting to splice together two independent clauses using a comma alone, which is a big no-no. Try these instead: No gifts please. We don’t need any orchids and we already have a toaster. No gifts please; we don’t need any orchids and we already have a toaster. No gifts please: we don’t need any orchids ...


2

Basically, "there should never ever be a comma after 'and'" is wrong. What you should think instead is that commas do not belong after 'and' in a list: I bought eggs, milk, and, bread. (Wrong! So very wrong!) and commas also do not belong after using 'and' as a coordinating conjunction: The first sentence is wrong and, this one is too. (Also very ...


1

Here's an example of a sentence that contains a parenthetical phrase (one that is not essential to the framing sentence): "Skye's sentence, which has no parenthetical phrase, needs no commas." Remove it, and the essential meaning of the sentence is preserved: "Skye's sentence needs no commas." If you remove "during the initial stages of love" from Skye's ...


1

I think "that" is better since you actually have two phrases which you wanted to connect to each other. Although the comma could do the same but usually comma is used when you want to have a bit of pause. Then to read it correctly it should be read like: Keep in mind, 1sec pause ... With using "that" you also specify which actually should be in mind.


1

I don't have information about the history of this, so I'm just responding to the second part of your question. Why should there be no comma before 'and'? The answer is simple - there has never been a convention for adding a comma (as far as I know) for mentioning two items: I like apples and oranges or She doesn't mind running or swimming. The problem comes ...


1

I think the way to think about this is that the word "terrified" is actually the result of ellipsis applied to the phrase "feeling terrified". The implied full sentence is "Feeling terrified, John locked the door and switched off the lights." A comma should be used because when you say "Terrified, John locked the door" you would insert a brief pause after ...


1

I think use of the semicolon in the sentence is wrong. From http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/semicolon/: A semicolon is a punctuation mark used to connect two thoughts or ideas which are somehow similar. Generally, each thought or idea could be used as its own sentence, but the flow of the work may be interrupted by the short, choppy ...


1

In the absence of greater context, I'd say "No" to the first, though it's possible that there might be a context where it would be desirable, but I can't think of one at the moment. With respect to the second, yes, I'd use a comma, there.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible