1

Can/Should a comma be used at the end of a restrictive clause to separate two verbs (e.g. for clarity)?

  • Everything that reduces the representative quality as copies of data are made, can be regarded as a form of “generation loss.”

I know that if the above sentence were simplified, as below, no comma would be necessary.

Everything that reduces the representative quality can be regarded as a form of “generation loss.”

All help would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

8
  • 1
    No, you shouldn't have a comma there. Why do you think you might want it? Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 13:06
  • 3
    Does this answer your question? Is a comma necessary in "What’s funny, is …"? @John Purdy's wise answer contains 'It was standard for much of Modern English history to use a comma to separate a complex subject (eg “What’s funny…”) from the rest of the sentence' but concludes: 'In short: it’s best avoided unless you’re intentionally writing in the style of the early 1800s.' // With some really convoluted subjects, omitting a comma can lead one up garden paths or worse.... Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 13:45
  • 1
    But then the preferred option is to rephrase. << We can regard as a form of 'generation loss' everything that reduces the representative quality as copies of data are made. >> Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 13:49
  • 1
    No: it's a basic rule of English grammar that a verb should not be separated from its subject.
    – BillJ
    Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 17:46
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers A good reason might be because commas usually indicate a new Intonational Phrase (new musical tune). When a subject ends in a long relative clause, even a "restrictive one", the end of the relative clause normally ends with a nuclear tone and then a new IP begins beginning with the verb. So a writer's normal intuitive reaction to put a comma between two IPs is fubarred in this instance. Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 23:59

0

Browse other questions tagged .