Q. I work with many first-time authors, and many of them want to argue about commas. Of course as author, they have the final decision of their own work . . . but I keep running into the idea of breath: “My high school English teacher taught me that commas go where you want to take a breath, so that’s why this comma should be here.” What would you say to these authors?
A. The rules on comma usage in CMOS (chapter 6) favor writing over speaking. The goal is to provide readers with the minimum number of signposts required to navigate sentence structure. Sentence structure is logical. Pauses or breaths, on the other hand, tend to be personal. Though commas will often correspond to pauses, no two people will read the same sentence in precisely the same way.
For most types of expository writing, we’d advise following a consistent set of rules that assign commas based on sentence structure rather than pauses or breaths (or what some would refer to as rhythm). This approach will support the goal of producing clear, unambiguous prose.
But in fiction and poetry and other forms of creative writing, there’s more room for stylistic variation. Some writers apply commas with a light touch; others punctuate more closely. Henry James was a stylist of the latter type:
It led, in short, in the course of the October afternoon, to his closer meeting with May Bartram, whose face, a reminder, yet not quite a remembrance, as they sat, much separated, at a very long table, had begun merely by troubling him rather pleasantly. (“The Beast in the Jungle,” in The Better Sort [Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903], 190)
This sentence might be edited to conform to Chicago style as follows:
It led in short, in the course of the October afternoon, to his closer meeting with May Bartram, whose face, a reminder yet not quite a remembrance as they sat much separated at a very long table, had begun merely by troubling him rather pleasantly.
James famously dictated his writing by that point in his career; one can imagine him pausing over each successive layer of meaning as he spoke the words aloud. But when the goal is primarily to make sure readers understand the text rather than to provide a record of the creative process, all those extra commas can get in the way.
So unless you’re dealing with an accomplished prose stylist, you might say to your recalcitrant authors that whereas at least some of their readers will be annoyed by superfluous or random commas, few if any will miss them when they’re gone. For another take on this subject, see “Sure, You Got A’s in English—But Do You Know Where Commas Go?” at CMOS Shop Talk.
Q. Chicago says commas aren’t needed with “not only . . . but also” constructions but are needed between two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction. So which wins when you have both?
A. When a pair of correlative conjunctions like not . . . but, either . . . or, or both . . . and joins two independent clauses, the clauses should be separated by a comma unless they are very short and closely related. In other words, the rule about independent clauses takes precedence (see CMOS 6.22).
This situation arises when the subject of the first clause follows rather than precedes the opening conjunction. In that case, another subject (often the same one) is required after the coordinating conjunction, which is then preceded by a comma:
Not only did we camp in the woods, but we also canoed down the river.
Either we will camp in the woods, or we will canoe down the river.
Compare the same sentences but with the subject moved to precede the opening conjunction:
We not only camped in the woods but also canoed down the river.
We will either camp in the woods or canoe down the river.
In that case, the subject isn’t repeated, so no comma is needed (see CMOS 6.23 and 6.46). For more information about correlative conjunctions, see CMOS 5.199 and 5.244.
Q. Hi. A fiction author of ours hates the word that and often replaces it with a comma. For example: “The interior was so dark, she made out only shadowy shapes.” And “Her eyes fell on a cup, and a memory rose up with such clarity, she released a little gasp.” In such cases, we might offer her suggestions to rephrase, but would you let the commas stand? Or would you consider these sentences to have comma splices? This comes up a lot in fiction with other authors, too, so we’d love to hear your opinion! Thanks.
A. Your author’s style seems fine to us. The word that—whether as a relative pronoun or, as in your examples, as a subordinating conjunction—is often omitted. Relative pronoun: “The room [that] I entered was shadowy.” Subordinating conjunction: “I was so hungry [that] I nearly fainted.”
In the first case, a comma in place of that would be clearly wrong; commas never set off a restrictive relative clause (called a contact clause when the relative pronoun is omitted). But a comma in the second example might add a bit of clarity, especially if the clauses were longer and you didn’t have the option of retaining that.
Nor would we necessarily consider your sentences as having comma splices; they’re more like compound sentences with elided conjunctions. If you’re consistent with your author’s prose and suggest rephrasing wherever clarity is at stake, her style will begin to seem natural, allowing the story to take center stage.
Q. Can you clarify when commas should be used with an “or” phrase? For example, should it be “Table salt, also known as sodium chloride or NaCl” or “Table salt, also known as sodium chloride, or NaCl”?
A. When “or” is used to introduce an equivalent rather than an alternative, a comma is strictly correct. Compare the following examples:
To get to the stadium, you can take a train or a bus.
To get to the stadium, you can take the elevated train, or el.
In the first example, “a bus” is an alternative to “a train”; it is not another way of writing “a train.” A comma is therefore unnecessary. In the second example, “el” is equivalent to “elevated train,” so the comma is correct. Still, such a comma may be omitted in certain cases, provided the meaning remains clear. You may want to do this, for example, to avoid comma clutter in text that mentions more than a few such equivalents. In an example like yours, which presents not two equivalent terms but three—all in a single sentence—the comma before “or” remains strictly correct. But it’s a little fussy and could be omitted if done so consistently.
Q. According to CMOS 6.51, “Expressions of the type that is are traditionally followed by a comma. They are best preceded by an em dash or a semicolon rather than a comma, or the entire phrase they introduce may be enclosed in parentheses or em dashes.” My question is this: Would it still be acceptable to use a comma in such expressions rather than the em dash or parentheses? Thank you!
A. Technically, yes: two commas would still be considered correct. But the problem with that first comma—and the reason we discourage it—is that unlike dashes, semicolons, and opening parentheses, which are forward looking, commas tend to be backward looking. For example,
The committee, that is, its more influential members, wanted to drop the matter.
Does the phrase “that is” in the example above belong with the words that come before it, or does it belong to the words that follow? A stronger mark solves this potential for a momentary misreading by providing more structure to the sentence:
The committee (that is, its more influential members) wanted to drop the matter.
Another solution is to simply omit the second comma:
The committee, that is its more influential members, wanted to drop the matter.
That last approach is fine for casual prose, but formal prose usually calls for the more structured punctuation choices recommended in CMOS.
Q. When an expression like “11 minutes, 52 seconds” occurs in the middle of a sentence (as in “We finished 11 minutes, 52 seconds ahead of the next car”), is a second comma required? If not, why?
A. It may seem reasonable to add a second comma, as Chicago would advise in similar scenarios—for example, after a year when it follows a day: “July 7, 2020, was a Tuesday.” But those two commas work like parentheses, which could be substituted for the commas without changing the meaning of the sentence: “July 7 (2020) was a Tuesday.” The comma in “11 minutes, 52 seconds” acts more like a conjunction, standing in for “and”:
The tortoise crossed the finish line 11 minutes, 52 seconds ahead of the hare.
or
The tortoise crossed the finish line 11 minutes and 52 seconds ahead of the hare.
A second comma is needed only if the sentence requires it for other reasons:
Beating the hare by 11 minutes, 52 seconds, the tortoise established a new record.
Other expressions that consist of a mix of related units may be handled similarly: “The team’s starting pitcher is five feet, nine inches tall.” But compare the case of a conversion, where the converted units must be fully set off from the surrounding text: “We drove 120 miles (193 km) before running out of gas,” or “We drove 120 miles, or 193 kilometers, before running out of gas.”
Q. I don’t understand why the following example in the serial comma section (CMOS 6.19) is not considered a comma splice: “Paul put the kettle on, Don fetched the teapot, and I made tea.”
A. Every so-called comma splice is a conjunction away from conformity. As comma splices go, the following sentence would be considered a classic case:
Paul put the kettle on, Don fetched the teapot.
You can fix the transgression by adding a conjunction or by changing the comma to a semicolon:
Paul put the kettle on, and Don fetched the teapot.
or
Paul put the kettle on; Don fetched the teapot.
But some editors would argue that the version with the comma splice isn’t truly an error; it’s simply two independent clauses joined by a conjunction that’s been elided: “Paul put the kettle on, [and] Don fetched the teapot.” Such elision is more common in casual prose, but it does have its place, particularly in creative writing.
With a series of three or more independent clauses, on the other hand, it is conventional to retain only the final “and”:
Paul put the kettle on, Don fetched the teapot, and I made tea.
You could place semicolons between the clauses, but most writers and editors save those for more complex series (see CMOS 6.60). As for supplying the “missing” conjunction, that would be pointless.
Q. I’ve gone through your section on commas numerous times, yet I can’t seem to find whether a comma would be used in the following instance: “You can be very helpful to your mother or father, or to a person you think of as a parent.”
A. Strictly speaking, the comma in your example is unnecessary. But such a comma may be added if the information that follows the conjunction needs emphasis or is intended as an afterthought—or, as in your example, to help readers navigate a hierarchy of alternatives by providing a sort of shorthand for “on the one hand . . . on the other.”
Even in the simplest of sentences, however, a bit of extra punctuation relative to an “or” or an “and” may be appropriate sometimes. Note how punctuation (or its absence) changes the emphasis in the following examples:
I’ll take an apple or a pear.
I’ll take an apple, or a pear.
I’ll take an apple—or a pear.
I’ll take an apple (or a pear).
I’ll take an apple. Or a pear.
All of these are correct. The conjunction “or” separates the alternatives; adding a comma, a dash, parentheses, or a period emphasizes that break in subtly different ways. But don’t go overboard. In general, it’s best to take a light hand with any punctuation that might be considered optional. When in doubt, leave it out.
Q. Regarding the placement of a comma after “of course,” I’d always treated “of course” used emphatically differently from “of course” used as an aside. With the emergence of better grammar checkers being utilized with an assumption of accuracy, I now see more of this: “Can I come over?” “Of course, you can.” Is this actually correct? I’ve been unsuccessful in finding a conclusive answer. Some sources say you always put a comma after “of course.” Others say it’s up to the author. Since it seems that the placement of a comma can change the meaning, I’d hoped for something a bit more definitive than “You do you, boo.”
A. The presence or absence of a comma after “of course” can make a difference, and any source (including your grammar checker) that suggests “of course” always needs to be followed by a comma is wrong. Though a comma can usually follow an introductory adverbial phrase like “of course,” such a comma is also usually optional (see CMOS 6.31). Of course, setting off a phrase like “of course” will emphasize the phrase itself. But to shift the emphasis to include the words that follow, you should omit the comma. (Of course you should.)
Q. In previous Q&A entries, you’ve said to include a comma after “Inc.” or “Ltd.” if a comma precedes it: “The office of ABC, Inc., was located downtown.” I could understand the reason for this if “Inc.” were replaced by a generic description: “The office of ABC, an incorporated company, was located downtown.” But since “Inc.” is a capitalized part of a formal, proper name, wouldn’t this be analogous to the example in CMOS 6.17 about titles of works, in which a title containing a comma doesn’t need to be followed by a comma (“Look Homeward, Angel was not the working title of Wolfe’s manuscript”)? If not, what’s the distinction?
A. Our recommendation depends on the idea that “Inc.” isn’t truly a formal part of a company’s name (in spite of what some companies like to think). It is, rather, a description that attaches to the formal name but is itself generic—every bit as generic as your example, “an incorporated company.” In just about the same way, “Jr.” and “Sr.” function as generic but capitalized additions to a person’s name; they signal a relationship to a parent or child with the same name, but they are not intrinsic to any one name.
A comma in the title of a novel or other work, on the other hand, belongs to that title: it can’t be deleted as a simple matter of style, as we recommend doing before “Jr.” or “Inc.” (see CMOS 6.43 and 6.44). Nor does such a comma bear any syntactic relation to the surrounding text. The fact that titles of works are usually cordoned off from the surrounding text by italics or quotation marks supports this logic.
If you’re still not convinced, and if dropping the first comma isn’t an option (some companies will insist), follow the logic of titles of works and omit the second comma. Any logic, as long as you adhere to it consistently, is better than none.