Q. Is it correct or incorrect to put a comma before the “and” in the following sentence:
“The Department of Justice has taken on the role of coordinating agencies’ activities,
and has undertaken several new initiatives related to dealing with criminals.” I think it’s
correct because the second clause—although not an independent clause, strictly speaking—is
so long (and the subject is implied). The comma seems to help the reader get through the sentence. Many thanks.
A. The comma isn’t necessary, but if you want to indicate a pause, add it anyway. Please see CMOS 6.16: “The comma, aside from its technical uses in mathematical, bibliographical, and other contexts,
indicates the smallest break in sentence structure. Especially in spoken contexts, it usually denotes a slight pause. Effective
use of the comma involves good judgment, with ease of reading the end in view.”
Q. Is the following the correct way to punctuate the date?
Period between June 23, 2003 and March 19, 2004
A. It’s conventional to put a comma after the year. The commas are like parentheses here, so it doesn’t
make sense to have only one.
Q. When I encounter a restrictive clause with multiple elements, do I put a comma at the end of the last element? For example:
The woman who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim said hello to me. Or is it: The woman who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim,
said hello to me.
A. Commas are like parentheses when they indicate nonrestriction, so you need two of them, but in a restrictive clause you don’t
need them at all: The woman who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim said hello. In a nonrestrictive clause, you need a pair,
whether it’s parentheses or commas: The woman (who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim) said hello. Or,
The woman, who was blonde, green-eyed, and slim, said hello.
Q. Do you perceive any difference in meaning in the following two sentences? (1) Communication patterns must be created so that
parallel transmissions are possible when using the RS formula or the DL method, as shown in figure 1. (2) Communication patterns
must be created so that parallel transmissions are possible when using the RS method or the DL method as shown in figure 1.
A. Yes, there is a difference. In sentence 1, the final phrase is nonrestrictive: the figure illustrates (incidentally) how
patterns must be created, perhaps showing only one of many ways. In sentence 2 the last bit is restrictive: patterns must
be created as shown in the figure. In your sentences, the difference is possibly very important. In other contexts the real
difference in meaning might be so slight as not to matter: (1) He chose a slip of paper, which turned out to be the winning
ticket. (2) He chose a slip of paper which turned out to be the winning ticket.
Q. Please, please end a debate I recently had with my European friend over a comma issue as follows: “The
Catalan archaeologist, Pere de Palol, started the excavations again.” I feel that it is necessary to
delete the commas before and after the name. With them, wouldn’t the sentence imply that there is only
one Catalan archaeologist? The text is going to appear on a plaque in a museum.
A. You are right, although you must keep in mind that “only one Catalan archeologist”
applies only to the given context. For instance, if the text were about four archeologists and one of them were Catalan (out
of all the many Catalan archeologists available), the commas would be needed: “The American, Joan Smith,
excavated for three months. Six years later the Catalan archeologist, Pere de Palol, started the excavations again.”
Here, “archeologist” is a nonrestrictive (descriptive) appositive. If your sentence
is to stand alone on a plaque, however, without this sort of implied context, then “the Catalan archeologist
Pere de Palol” is a restrictive (defining) appositive, and you are right to omit the commas.
Q. HELP! I’m arguing with a contract lawyer over this sentence: “The vendor may
use the board’s logo on its website and on documents, provided, that such use . . .”
I think that the comma after “provided” is wrong, and separates two parts of a
single clause. He insists that “with the use of a ‘proviso,’
the second comma is appropriate and correct punctuation.” There are many “provided
that” phrases in the document in question, and he wants each of them to be “provided,
that.” Am I (a) wrong to think that this comma is incorrect in English? (b) Wrong to think that legal
documents are written in English? (c) Not wrong?
A. You are correct about the punctuation. A second comma would only introduce ambiguity into an otherwise clear sentence, because
in this case when “provided” is isolated by commas, it’s
not clear whether it modifies “documents” or the following clause. It wouldn’t
be the first time a convention of legal writing served to obscure meaning. In fact, some legal writers disdain the use of
provisos altogether. Take a look at Joseph Kimble’s article for the Michigan Bar Journal , “Down with Provided That” ( http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article721.pdf).
Q. When I began learning English grammar from the nuns in or about 1951, I was taught to NEVER use a comma either after or before
independent clauses or compound sentences. Did the rules of English grammar and punctuation change while I was in that three-week
coma in 1965 or in the years that it took to regain my basic and intellectual functioning before I returned to teaching?
A. I’m sorry I can’t account for your state of mind, but standard punctuation calls
for a comma before a conjunction that joins two independent clauses unless the clauses are very short. Please see CMOS 6.28. I would go further and suggest that it’s a good idea to reexamine any rule you were taught that
includes the word “never” or “always.”
Q. When do you use a comma before “because”? I feel that I never need to put a comma
before “because” because any information after it is necessary. What are your
thoughts?
A. I disagree. Here’s the old example that comes to mind:
He didn’t run, because he was afraid.
He didn’t run because he was afraid.
In the first sentence, “because he was afraid” isn’t necessary;
the main thing is that he didn’t run, and the reason is incidental. The second sentence, which omits
the comma, is unclear. It might mean that he ran, but not because he was afraid. To prevent confusion, sometimes you need
the comma. For more examples, see CMOS 6.31.
Q. I am having a dispute with a local store regarding their return policy, worded as such: “[Retailers]
will refund the purchase price of any previewed, defective or mislabeled products returned within 30 days, provided you have
the original receipt.” The retailers claim that since the serial comma is not employed, “previewed”
becomes a stipulation of both “defective” and “mislabeled.”
Under their interpretation of the policy this is equivalent to saying “any previewed defective or previewed
mislabeled products.” This is especially important to me, since I purchased a new, defective product
from them.
A. Chalk one up for Chicago’s promotion of the serial comma! Although you must consult an attorney in
order to learn the legal import of the phrasing in question, one can’t help but ask: if the retailers
think that “any previewed, defective or mislabeled products” is equivalent to
“any previewed defective or previewed mislabeled products,” would they also agree
that “any mushroom, pepperoni or sausage pizza” is equivalent to “any
mushroom pepperoni pizza or mushroom sausage pizza”? The retailers’ omission of
commas in their interpretation (“previewed defective or previewed mislabeled”)
is tantamount to admitting that the sentence was unclear as written. Finally, even if the retailers’
punctuation logic were technically correct (which it isn’t), they would be using the letter of the law
to evade its spirit.
Q. Is there a rule that I’ve missed somewhere that says there should always be a comma before the word
“then” if “then” is at the end of
a sentence? For example: It’s settled, then. Sometimes it sounds fine; other times it seems more like
an obstacle to the flow of the sentence. But a rule is a rule, so if you can point me to the correct section in CMOS, I’ll stop turning up my nose at this construction.
A. It’s dangerous to make a rule saying that you always have to put a comma in front of a particular word,
so we avoid doing that. The trick is to determine whether a comma is needed. In the case of “then”
it’s rarely needed when the word means “at that time”; it’s
often needed when it means “in that case.” The comma shows the meaning:
Meet me at the hot tub then. (Then = at the appointed time.)
Meet me at the hot tub, then. (Then = so, it’s decided.)
Chicago Style Q&A: New Questions and Answers
