22.06.2013 Views

Grammatically Correct: The writer's essential guide to punctuation ...

Grammatically Correct: The writer's essential guide to punctuation ...

Grammatically Correct: The writer's essential guide to punctuation ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

PUNCTUATION<br />

Exception<br />

If a parenthetical word or expression doesn't break the continuity<br />

of the sentence, it is sometimes acceptable <strong>to</strong> omit the commas<br />

al<strong>to</strong>gether. If you are uncertain whether or not <strong>to</strong> include commas,<br />

say the sentence aloud, spontaneously, and decide if a pause sounds<br />

right.<br />

She did in fact pay the loan back.<br />

<strong>The</strong> course in my opinion is a joke.<br />

IF A SUBJECT IS FOLLOWED BY A NONRESTRICTIVE DESCRIPTOR,<br />

USE COMMAS TO SET OFF THE DESCRIPTOR. IF IT IS FOLLOWED<br />

BY A RESTRICTIVE DESCRIPTOR, DO NOT USE COMMAS<br />

When an element that either follows or lies within an independent<br />

clause provides some information about the subject of that clause,<br />

this information may be considered either restrictive or nonrestrictive.<br />

A restrictive element acts <strong>to</strong> identify precisely which subject,<br />

out of various possible ones, is being discussed. A nonrestrictive<br />

element, while it adds more information about the subject, does not<br />

serve <strong>to</strong> further identify it-in this case, the subject is already fully<br />

identified. (Some authorities call these relationships defining and<br />

nondejining, or limiting and nonlimiting. <strong>The</strong> meaning is the<br />

same.)<br />

A nonrestrictive element is parenthetical in the sense that it is<br />

not critical <strong>to</strong> the meaning of the sentence; if it were removed, the<br />

meaning of what remained would still be intact. In contrast, if a<br />

restrictive element were removed, meaning would be lost.<br />

Compare the following two sentences:<br />

By two in the morning, the only people still at Shirley's party were her<br />

oldest friend, Susan, and her neighbor George.<br />

By two in the morning, the only people still at Shirley's party were her<br />

friend Susan and her upstairs neighbor, George.<br />

In case A, the name Susan is nonrestrictive, since by definition<br />

one can have no more than one oldest friend. <strong>The</strong> inclusion of<br />

Susan is adding more information about this friend-her namebut<br />

omitting it wouldn't introduce any ambiguity as <strong>to</strong> which friend<br />

is meant. In contrast, George serves <strong>to</strong> identify which neighbor was<br />

73

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!