Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 September 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 20

Comma question

Which is more correct? The only difference is the presence/absence of the comma following "Mercedes".

Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes, and, according to his brother, was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped.

Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes and, according to his brother, was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The second one is preferable, as commas, though used between the parts of compound sentences, need not be used between the parts of compound predicates. Deor (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, since I've always preferred that form. Thanx. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's unlikely that anyone would expect Scott to be driving two cars at once. Dbfirs 07:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Contrary opinion - I would render the sentence as: "Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes, and according to his brother, was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped." The first third of the sentence establishes an accepted fact, the middle part makes it clear that what follows is one person's account, and the final part is that person's own account. I believe that my placement of the commas best expresses and delineates the three discrete thoughts in the sentence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting, since I always find that one grating. according to his brother is a dependent clause and my mind really wants it bracketed with commas, which I believe is what they call "correct grammatical punctuation", or some such thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The test of a dependant clause is that you should be able to remove it, and the rest of the sentence will still be grammatical. If you include the "and" within the commas, that test fails. Wymspen (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That's right. The words "according to his brother" must be surrounded by commas. This has nothing to do with whether or not a comma comes after "Mercedes". It does no actual harm to put one in there, but it can be removed without risk to comprehension, so I'd definitely do without it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, my intuition is otherwise yeah, I know, "otherwise" is an adverb. I agree you don't need the comma for comprehension, and I can't elucidate anything about the logical structure that requires it either. But I think the sentence is more elegant with the comma.

I'm not sure exactly why. I think my own comma usage is a mix of "mark logical structure" and "mark natural pauses". This comma is probably more a natural-pause case than a logical-structure case. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubt: the best punctuation is as follows: "Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes, and - according to his brother - was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped ".

Similarly: "I live in California - even though I'd rather live in Florida, whereas you live in Florida - even though you'd rather live in California ". Please notice, that the usage of commas only - is not recommended - in either case. I wonder, why many editors forgot the dashes. HOTmag (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Who says the use of commas only is not recommended? Your rewrite of the first sentence is far more unwieldy than the OP's two options (either of which are acceptable). And your second sentence is incoherent. By the way, I removed your unnecessary use of bold face. --Viennese Waltz 09:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As for your question "who says etc.": I (do). Just as, if I had asked "who disagrees with me?" - then the correct answer would have been: "You (do)".

As for your comment that my rewrite of the first sentence is far more unwieldy than the OP's two options: I think it's clearer than the OP's two options, and is not unwieldy at all.

As for your comment that my second sentence is incoherent. I think it's entirely coherent, as is the sentence "I'm a baby - in spite of my desire to be an adult, whereas he is an adult - in spite of his desire to be a baby ". Absolutely coherent.

As for your removing the bold face from my response, because you think it's unnecessary. I've put it back, because I think it's necessary. Further, I think nobody is allowed to change anything in another person's response, unless the way the response was written was against Wikipedia guidelines. HOTmag (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, when you say "the usage of commas only - is not recommended - " (don't know what's going on with the dashes there, by the way), it sounds like you're citing some kind of generally accepted rule of punctuation, of which there is none. As for your Florida/California example, the way it's worded is grotesque. What you should write instead is something like "I live in California, even though I'd rather live in Florida; you live in Florida, even though you'd rather live in California." It reads much better without the dashes, which break up the flow of the sentence too much. --Viennese Waltz 14:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it sounds like I'm citing some kind of generally accepted rule of punctuation. I just meant it didn't sound well when one wrote the OP's sentence with commas only.

As for your suggestion "I live in California, even though I'd rather live in Florida; you live in Florida, even though you'd rather live in California. ": Please notice, that the OP chose not to use a semicolon - which could apparently solve their problem - e.g. by writing: "Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes; according to his brother, he was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped ". I guess, the OP didn't want to use a semicolon - because they didn't want to give up the "and", just as I didn't use a semicolon in my Florida/California example - because I didn't want to give up the "whereas". HOTmag (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your egregious use of the passive gave that impression, as it distanced your statement from you, personally. Henry^Flower 21:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

HOTmag, are you quite seriously suggesting that "the usage of commas only - is not recommended - in either case" is a valid English sentence? There is absolutely no justification for those dashes; nor would commas be appropriate there. If you think that's how English is written, I can only assume you're not a native speaker. No offence to non-native speakers, but they sometimes make mistakes (as do native speakers; but no native would make this particular one). Now, I could accept "the usage of commas only is not recommended - in either case". But the one after "only" is unacceptable, on the same basis that "The cat - sat on the mat" would be unacceptable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah he's definitely not a native speaker. "I've just meant" is a dead giveaway, as it's a mistake often made by non-native speakers. --Viennese Waltz 06:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing. In the beginning I wrote "I've just read your suggestion... ", but before I sent my response, I replaced the "read your suggestion... " by "meant it didn't sound well " (while leaving the "your suggestion" issue to another sentence), but I forgot to delete the " 've". HOTmag (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Then he has no business telling others what is "undoubtedly" the case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

First, not "he" but rather "she". Second, I didn't recommend on whether to use any dashes in the sentence "the usage of commas only - is not recommended - in either case " (I was only referring to the OP's sentence when I recommended on whether to add the dashes). Third, also native speakers may write "The cat - sat on the mat ", provided that they don't recommend on the dash in that sentence; just as native speakers may write "It's me", provided that they don't recommend on whether to use the word "me " in that sentence. Forth, I still think, that undoubtedly (yep, that's what I think), the best punctuation for the OP's sentence is "Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes, and - according to his brother - was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped ". Fifth (and not less important), my journey to Tassie in July was very successful, thanks to your helpful recommendations. I have much to tell, but I will do that later. HOTmag (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There may be no doubts in your mind about the use of the dashes, but I have plenty of doubts. Therefore, your "undoubtedly" can only be referring to your personal opinion, and not to a generally accepted position or consensus. Please don't misrepresent your personal opinion about something as an established fact. Given your obvious difficulties with the English language, you are on shaky ground when it comes to advising others on its finer points. This is not a personal criticism. I just hate seeing our clients here at the ref desk misled. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No native speaker would ever write "The cat - sat on the mat". --Viennese Waltz 11:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You are allowed to have doubts, about what I have no doubts about. Therefore, you are allowed to write "doubtfully ", just as I'm allowed to write "undoubtfully ". Everybody is supposed to write their own opinion (about the consensus or about whatever), rather than everybody's opinion (about the consensus or about whatever).

I don't know what you mean by "established fact". A times table, is an established fact. The "best" writing style, can never be an established fact. It's only the best recommendation, which an individual (i.e. me in our case) can think of. I think that pineapples are undoubtedly the tastiest food - i.e. I have no doubts about that, while you may think that peaches are undoubtedly the tastiest food - i.e. you may have no doubts about that. However, this does mean that I or you think there is any consensus here.

As for "The cat - sat on the mat ": well, we disagree. I think that some native English speakers may write "I have, an apple but, he doesn't because, I ate all of, his apples ". This does not mean it's a proper punctuation (of course it's not a proper punctuation in any language - not only in English), this only means that their style of punctuation does not help us determine whether they are native English speakers. Anyways, I've never written "The cat - sat on the mat " (except when I quoted Jack's example), nor have I ever recommended on whether to use the dashes in the sentence "the usage of commas only - is not recommended - in either case ". I've only recommended on whether to use the dashes, in the OP's sentence - which is the main issue.

I don't know what "obvious difficulties with the English language " you are talking about, nor do I know what "shaky ground " you're talking about. Additionally, I think, that the statement "you are on shaky ground " is a personal criticism (as opposed to what you say about your intention). This is my opinion about that statement, even though I respect your opinion about your intention (and I also believe you were frank and sincere when you wrote you didn't want that statement to be regarded as a personal criticism). Anyways, I've never made any personal criticism, and I'm pleased with that. HOTmag (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Obvious difficulties? There's no such expression as "recommend on", which you've used repeatedly. Viennese Waltz mentioned your "I've just meant". At least twice you've written "I think, that", which doesn't seem to compute. That aside, the issue with "undoubtedly" is that it's normally used in relation to something of which nobody has any doubts; not just to the speaker/writer's frame of mind. It's a very categorical modifier. I can say "Obama is undoubtedly the US President", because there really are no doubts anywhere, except in the minds of deranged persons. But I can't say "There are undoubtedly little green men on Mars", merely because I personally happen to be convinced that is the case. Regardless of my belief, I'm well aware uncountable millions of people would have doubts, so how can it possibly be "undoubtedly"? That's all I'm saying. A native speaker wouldn't need to have this explained to them. There's no shame in not being a native speaker, but that status brings with it an inherent disadvantage: generally speaking, non-natives are less fluent, have a lesser command of idiom, have a smaller vocabulary, etc. There are obviously some exceptions, like Vladimir Nabokov. But in general, non-natives should not be pronouncing, ex cathedra as it were, on the rules of English. Particularly when their own lack of command of that very language is writ large. Pax. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As for "I've just meant ", I don't know what you're talking about, and it seems like you haven't read my response to Viennese Waltz's comment about that issue.

As for "I think, that": If somebody writes: "I have, an apple but, he doesn't because, I ate all of, his apples ", then this does not mean they claim it's a proper punctuation (of course it's not a proper punctuation in any language - not only in English). Anyways, I've never recommended on whether to use the comma in the sentence "I think, that ". I've only recommended on whether to use the dashes, in the OP's sentence - which is the main issue.

As for the use of "undoubtedly": You can say "There are undoubtedly little green men on Mars ", if you personally have no doubt about that. This does not mean that anybody saying this is right: They may be wrong, but we are not talking about the correctness of the opinion about which they have no doubt. We are talking about the correctness of their use of "undoubtedly " - assuming they are right about what they have no doubt about. HOTmag (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You are a non-native speaker who is using the language in a non-standard manner, and I, a native speaker, am telling you your words do NOT mean what you believe they mean, and you are defending this from a position of ignorance. That is very sad. I've said my piece. Now peace. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's assume I'm speaking "from a position of ignorance" (as you claim). Further, let's assume I'm a perfect idiot. Can you give me one example proving that?

Is it my use of "undoubtedly" that you don't like? If it's that, then what if I replaced the "undoubtedly" by "I have no doubt"? Would that be fine with you? Or maybe you just don't like my suggestion of adding dashes to the OP's sentence? Or...what? Pax. HOTmag (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is your use of "undoubtedly" that I don't like. Yes, I would be much, much happier if you replaced it with "I have no doubt". That pins it down to you, whereas "undoubtedly, as I've explained above, includes the rest of humanity, even though you have no mandate to speak for them. And no, I don't like your suggested dashes. Commas work just fine there. Dashes have their place, but where they add no value, as in this case, they are contra-indicated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

All right, just because I highly respect you (after you helped me plan my successful journey to Tassie), I've just changed the word as you wish (Btw, had you been another person I wouldn't have done that). However, we still disagree about what the meaning of "undoubtedly" is, and also about the dashes issue, because I really think that adding dashes to the OP's sentence will solve their problem in the best way. Pax. HOTmag (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your respect for me (which I appreciate) regarding an entirely unrelated matter should not come into it. This isn't about our personal relationship. Yes, you've made it clear what your opinion of the words is, and so have I. Let us agree to disagree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is one special instance where "The cat - sat on the mat" could form part of a legitimate English sentence. In some parts of England (and I don't know where), 'sat' can mean 'sitting'. Thus, speakers from there could form a sentence like this: "The cat - sat on the mat - was expectantly awaiting her dinner." This usage is exclusive to those parts of England and is found nowhere else in the English-speaking world. Other constructions: "He was sat in his armchair.", "She was stood at the top of the stairs." Akld guy (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't even that forced. The phrasing "The cat - seated on the mat - ..." is a perfectly normal construction in almost EVERY standard national dialect of English I can think of. Insofar as both "sat" and "seated" are past tense forms of "to sit", it's an easy to understand construction. We don't have to bring "sitting" into the analysis at ALL. --Jayron32 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Sat" is a preterite. "Seated" in this context is a past participle. Never the twain shall meet. Likewise, to use "sat" for "sitting" (present continuous) would indicate poor understanding of English grammar. 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Only the grammar of some dialects. Akld guy has cited a dialect where it's a perfectly acceptable usage. --Jayron32 00:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That phrase

She was stood at the top of the stairs

actually means that somebody picked her up and placed her there. This is poor grammar on a par with

She was laid on the bed

used intransitively.

Responders shouldn't be coming to the Reference desk and using these forms as illustrations of correct English. 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In which dialects of English? There are hundreds, and in many of them, those are acceptable constructions. Phrases like "poor grammar" or "wrong" are context dependent. There is not a universal set of rules that apply to all languages across all time and space; merely rules which have evolved among particular groups of speakers in a specific context. --Jayron32 00:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

She lay on the bed. After she lied down, she was laid on the bed. All perfect English.--86.187.168.215 (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah no. After she lay down. She did not lie about it.--86.187.168.215 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

By my rough calculation, this thread will be discussing infant mortality rates by the end of next month. Ask a simple question ... ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't hold up my example of the usage of 'sat' as a recommended construction. I made it perfectly clear that it is a usage unique to certain parts of England. My one-time landlord was a Yorkshireman and often used the construction. Akld guy (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Sit thee down" is good Lanky, as well. Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)