Members of parliament can criticize other members, here.
Note the comma after members and before here.
In this particular case, is it okay? Or should the comma not be there?
-
1There is a growing acceptance of the use of commas to show where pauses occur / are wished to occur in spoken English. John Lawler might even say that that's their only role. The unmarked form would not include the comma, but if 'here' is emphasised (as your bolding indicates), a pause to add more emphasis might well be valid, and a comma used to show this in the written form. Though the example seems a little strange, and a dash might be preferred.– Edwin AshworthCommented May 18, 2013 at 21:55
-
@EdwinA: Yes, I can imagine the speaker of this sentence pausing pregnantly & stressing laboriously or "toryously" the ultimate utterance "here!" = "MPs can criticize other MPs here (House of Commons?), in this place, but not elsewhere, specifically not in press conferences or other public venues".– user21497Commented May 18, 2013 at 23:09
-
Taking liberalities.– Edwin AshworthCommented May 19, 2013 at 13:11
-
Okay. So a comma is not a wrong thing there!!– sohamCommented May 20, 2013 at 8:30
-
1Oh, no! We spend half our time weeding out misplaced commas. Must we now encourage them? The sample sentence, if anything, screamed for another "here" at the end: Members of Parliament can criticize other members, here here!– terpyCommented Jun 11, 2013 at 0:14
|
Show 1 more comment
4 Answers
The comma is there to add emphasis. It also indicates where a pause might occur in speech, but the pause is as a result of the comma, not the other way around. So, one would pause there for the emphasis that the comma indicates. Despite what some of us may have been taught at school, punctuation should not be used to indicate pauses per se (except in representing how something was actually said, eg, in creative writing or transcription).
I think it depends on the context:
"This is our internal message board. Members of parliament can criticize other members here." would be used without a comma. (i.e. "This is the place to do this.") I would only set a comma if the sentence were to convey: "Members of parliament can criticize other members, here." - but not elsewhere. (i.e. "Only this is the place to do this.")
I don't know of any directly applicable grammatical rule for this.
I would think that in certain situations, a comma is required both before and after the word 'here.' I wouldn't normally write with 'here' after a subject, but in conversation, the words are often spoken.
See these two examples:
John, here, has an important question. (This looks correct with commas.)
John here has an important question. (This looks incorrect.)
John, here, was seen going into that building earlier. (This looks correct.)
John here was seen going into that building earlier. (This looks incorrect.)
I cannot find any resource telling me whether or not this is correct, but I think the use of the word 'here' (without being isolated with commas) looks out of place. Thoughts?
-
-
If you have a new question, please ask it by clicking the Ask Question button. Include a link to this question if it helps provide context. - From Review– JoachimCommented Mar 3, 2022 at 18:31
It depends on how you want to use it. According to Wiktionary, "here" is an adverb, which is probably what you want. ... No. Likewise, you wouldn't say
I bake cakes, well.
However, if you have "here" as an interjection, it'd be okay. As in
Come look! Here!
-
I don't think that's the usage the OP is referring to. The original sentence seems to refer deictically to a place where MPs can criticise each other. Commented Jul 2, 2013 at 5:08