0

I had just asked a comma-related question and, having received an answer, now realize I was asking the wrong question. So, please review the following sentence, arbitrarily taken from Bachelard's The Poetics of Space:

"Memories of the outside world will never have the same tonality as home and, by recalling these memories, we add to our store of dreams."

The aforementioned sentence consists of two independent clauses. Why, then, is there not a comma before "and"? And could there be?

Now, from something I'd recently penned:

"... , and moving forward, actionable (i.e., interpretable and usable) data sets will prove to be a key element of successful marketing strategies."

In this instance, I'd placed the comma prior to the conjunction and treated the entire phrase, "moving forward," as part of that conjunction.

Are both of these examples correct? Are neither (i.e., should there technically be a comma before Bachelard's "and" and before my "moving forward")?

  • 1
    @Araucaria I undeleted it. I will add an explanation as to why. – Jake Regier Jul 29 '15 at 16:22
3

Yes, the quotation from Bachelard would be better with a comma before the "and", rather than after. However, it would be even better with a semicolon replacing the "and":

  • ". . .the same tonality as home; by recalling these memories, . . . "

It would not be good punctuation to leave out all commas. One would not say this sentence aloud with no pause, so one should not write it without any punctuation.

As for your own sentence: first of all, "moving forward" is generally useless fluff. It is businessese, signifying nothing. We are all always moving forward in time. It would be better left out.

Worse yet, when you use "moving forward" in the way you did, it comes close to saying that the data will be moving forward!

But if you keep it, you need punctuation both before and after the "and", because the adverbial phrase "moving forward" acts as a sentence modifier for the ending clause. Unless the first clause (which you never showed us) is very short, you probably need a semicolon before the "and". Thus:

  • "; and, going forward, actionable. . ."
0

Yes, a comma is required before "and" to separate the two independent clauses. I agree with Brian that even better than a comma would be a semicolon.

The comma after "and" is part of a pair of commas flanking the parenthetical phrase "by recalling these memories." However, this puts two commas around "and," which is awkward. Luckily, CMoS 6.26 allows for omitting commas between consecutive conjunctions caused by subordinate clauses. So, no comma needed between "and" and "by."

So the sentence should be: "Memories of the outside world will never have the same tonality as home, and by recalling these memories, we add to our store of dreams."

In your own example about marketing, I 100% agree with Brian's suggestions.

Although this post is old, I'm answering for others who may find the CMoS reference useful.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.