Timeline for Comma after introductory words, phrases, clauses: unacceptable, obligatory or optional?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

9 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Oct 1, 2023 at 14:35	history	edited	Joachim	CC BY-SA 4.0	linked to archived version of page
May 16, 2016 at 0:42	comment	added	Araucaria - Him		"The fact that you can still have a meaningful sentence without the clause doesn't mean, you must always enclose it in commas - just that you can." <-- not so, as illustrated ;-)
Dec 19, 2011 at 12:30	vote	accept	Boris
Dec 18, 2011 at 16:37	comment	added	FumbleFingers		Oh dear - does that make me a dinosaur? I still think providing readability doesn't suffer, less is more in punctuation as in so many things.
Dec 18, 2011 at 16:35	comment	added	Barrie England		@FumbleFingers: I used to be a minimalist in punctuation, but am swinging back slightly in the opposite direction.
Dec 18, 2011 at 16:34	comment	added	FumbleFingers		I think there's a tendency to use the comma, notwithstanding RiMMER's position. I personally would change your comma is appropriate to comma may well be appropriate, but really I think it's largely a matter of style in OP's specific context.
Dec 18, 2011 at 16:26	comment	added	Barrie England		@FumbleFingers: Quite so. Knowing the dangers of selective quotation, I hoped Boris would go to the source.
Dec 18, 2011 at 16:17	comment	added	FumbleFingers		Trask is primarily talking about paired "bracketting commas" delineating non-essential clauses. Near the end of that link he covers cases where the "supplementary clause" appears at the beginning or end of a sentence (with a notional comma assumed before or after the clause). The fact that you can still have a meaningful sentence without the clause doesn't mean you must always enclose it in commas - just that you can.
Dec 18, 2011 at 13:29	history	answered	Barrie England	CC BY-SA 3.0