|
After wrestling with commas for far too long I finally took this sentence from The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed. as gospel: "Effective use of the comma involves good judgment, with ease of reading the end in view." (6.18) Regarding clauses, 6.32 says that commas are usually used. And then goes on to say that if they are short clauses the comma may be omitted.
There were too many vague words in all the real style manuals I read.
My epiphany occurred when I realized that every comma is a slight stop in the reader's mind. Stopping when it isn't required quickly becomes old, at least in my experience. Reading The Hunger Games, where EVERY introductory clause is followed by a comma, made me want to scream! Two-thirds of those commas could have been eliminated and the reading experience would have been much better (even though the books were worth reading in spite of the pain). In your sentences, even though they aren't introductory clauses, I'd eliminate the commas because stopping isn't required.
Unless you, yourself, want, the, reader, to, stop, and, feel, that, pain!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: My epiphany occurred when I realized that every comma is a slight stop in the reader's mind.
That's exactly how I use them too. In my example I paused when thinking of the second sentence. So it really becomes a question of taste.
David O'Neil wrote: Unless you, yourself, want, the, reader, to, stop, and, feel, that, pain!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So it really becomes a question of taste.
Ah! That's different than your original statement: "...to make the second one more proper" I'll accept the new version!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: I'll accept the new version!
Well gee whiz that's swell.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am so magnanimous, 'taint I? OK, enough stupidity for today... Must get work done
Happy coding!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Yes, I am so magnanimous, 'taint I?
I was thinking more like arrogant.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I already understood that. Sorry, it wasn't my intention.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Unless you, yourself, want, the, reader, to, stop, and, feel, that, pain!
In, the, language blogs, I read, this, has become known, as, the Shatner comma! 
|
|
|
|
|
Both are correct, but you're correct that the latter is somewhat ambiguous.
Consider also "I stepped into the street and was hit by a bus" -- here there is an implied cause-and-effect. In your second sentence, were you hungry because you sat on the couch?
"While sitting on the couch, I began to feel hungry."
|
|
|
|
|
No, he sat on the couch BECAUSE he was hungry - maybe weak with hunger! 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't be a * foutieve beknopte bijzin, want het onderwerp in de bijzin is het zelfde als in de hoofdzin ("ik", impliciet), en je hebt ook niet te maken met het geval waar je een werkwoord verandert door er een speciale bijwoordelijke bepaling bij te zetten (namelijk een stiekem voorzetselvoorwerp), zoals in "ik sloeg hem bond en blauw en in de boeien".
* ninja language switch
It may be against style guidelines though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking of, but couldn't remember 
Enter the ninja 
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second I is not necessary though neither is it incorrect, just redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're writing it in a formal way, then write it like
"I sat on the couch and I was hungry.", or like this "I was hungry when I sat on couch."
because in formal ways, grammer and punctuation etc matters. If it is an informal letter of something, you can write it in any manner. Reader will understand,
Somehow, I am loving your signature!
Favourite line: Throw me to them wolves and close the gate up. I am afraid of what will happen to them wolves - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: Somehow, I am loving your signature!
I wrote a signature and was doubting between NotSupported- and NotImplementedException 
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Both are correct, the first is less clunky.
Now for a Vlams, less clunky is gong to be a difficult concept....
|
|
|
|
|
I would not use either, I would say - "I sat on the couch hungry".
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Because it might be dangerous to say (and do):
"I sat on a hungry couch"
And just to add to the mess, we have discussions as to whether it should be 'sofa' or 'couch'
|
|
|
|
|
The correct answer is, of course:
I sat on the couch and then I had bacon. I am no longer hungry.
|
|
|
|
|
I never really got that bacon thing... Sure, it's nice, but I liked pork chops or spare ribs better.
I say 'liked' because I've been a vegetarian for almost 17 years now, so I'd rather sit on the couch and have a bag of chips/crisps (really, nothing beats a bag of chips/crisps when sitting on a couch!)
Unfortunately I'm trying to lose weight/fat and I'm just sitting there hungry 
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
While sitting on the couch, I became hungry for spicy grilled steak burritos.
|
|
|
|
|
Both are perfectly correct, but normally pronouns are omitted when understood because it can sound redundant.
So while "I sat on the couch and I was hungry" is fine, it often doesn't sound good to repeat pronouns that way, so most people will just say "I sat on the couch and was hungry."
Otherwise you end up with sentences like "I sat on the couch and I was hungry, so I ate some leftovers from when I had dinner last night." It sounds better to say "I sat on the couch and was hungry, so I ate some leftovers from dinner last night."
You have to be careful with ambiguity though, for instance:
"I sat on the couch, my dog joined me, and the hunger grew."
Are you hungry? Is the dog hungry? Are you both hungry? A pronoun would help there.
|
|
|
|
|
They are both grammatically correct. From a style standpoint, the sentence combines (seemingly) unrelated ideas. That is, it begs more questions than it answers. Did the couch make you hungry? The the act of sitting make you hungry? When editing I would suggest something like:
As I sat on the couch, I realized that I was hungry.
One of the neat things about English for non-native speakers is that sentences can be formed in at least three ways:
I took my brown dog for a walk.
My brown dog I took for a walk.
I took for a walk, my brown dog.
I took my brown dog for a walk?
Although some are more awkward, they are all correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
