Q. Is it correct to use commas before and after “myself,” “himself,” “herself,” “itself,” etc. in cases like “I, myself, wouldn’t wear that dress”?
A. Normally such commas would be unnecessary. When it repeats the subject, a word like “myself” is called an intensifier—it adds emphasis. Commas would draw even more attention to the subject, but unless you want readers to pause over that intensifier, leave them out.
Q. Why does a comma follow Washington, DC, in running text?
A. That second comma helps to set “DC” off from the surrounding text; together, the commas work like parentheses. (Like parentheses, such commas always come in pairs.) Consider that without the second comma, a misreading is possible. For example, “Washington, DC is a great city” might mean that you are telling someone named Washington that DC is a great city. Another option is to omit both commas: “Washington DC is a great city.” That’s US Postal Service style for mailing labels, but it’s not Chicago style for running text (though maybe one day it will be).
Q. I’m not sure when to use a comma following a date at the beginning of a sentence. Can you help? For example, “In the 1960s, McManus declared victory . . .” or “In 1967, McManus selected Jones as the victor . . .” A fellow editor suggests striking all of the commas that follow the dates.
A. Your editor friend’s suggestion is reasonable, and Chicago recommends much the same approach (see CMOS 6.31). But it’s also reasonable to disagree in certain cases. Wherever a comma might be helpful for clarity (or for emphasis), add one: for example, “By 1967, 357 residents had returned to the complex.” (That comma keeps the numerals from appearing to run together.) In general, a flexible approach will serve the reader better than a rigid one.
Q. Is the serial/Oxford comma generally used in British English? If the guidelines do not specify anything, what would be the appropriate usage?
A. You would think that the Oxford (or serial) comma would be popular in British English. And it is, but it’s not exactly British law.
The latest iteration of Oxford’s venerable style guide (New Hart’s Rules, 2nd ed., 2014; this guide, like Chicago’s, has its origins in the 1890s) supports its use but allows it to be omitted: “For a century it has been a part of Oxford University Press style to retain or impose this last comma consistently, to the extent that the convention has also come to be called the Oxford comma. . . . The general rule is that one style or the other should be used consistently. However, the last comma can serve to resolve ambiguity” (p. 77). Butcher’s Copy-Editing, published by Cambridge University Press (4th ed., 2006), likewise treats serial commas as optional: “A comma should be consistently omitted or included before the final ‘and’ or ‘or’ in lists of three or more items” (p. 156).
In its own text, the guide by Cambridge omits serial commas; Oxford’s retains them.
So for British English, use serial commas or omit them, but do so consistently. And if you go without, make sure to add a comma wherever its absence might create ambiguity.
Q. It’s my observation that increasingly, in a sentence like this, the commas are being omitted, no matter how many sisters there are: “I wanted to go to the store, but my sister Sara refused.” Can’t we just admit that it’s cleaner and easier to omit them most of the time, unless there’s genuinely a clarity issue? The world is changing; can we make this official? Thank you.
A. In casual correspondence and the like, it’s OK to omit such commas wherever details related to family composition are unimportant or irrelevant (in other words, most of the time). So “my sister Sara” is totally fine in casual usage even if Sara is your only sister (and therefore functioning as a nonrestrictive appositive, which would normally be set off by commas). Consider that official. In more formal prose, however, these commas can be important. In a work of history or a biography—where the presence or absence of commas will help readers follow the narrative—they are essential. In other types of works, the rule can often be relaxed. (That’s not an official ruling, but it is a practical one.) For more on restrictive versus nonrestrictive appositives, see CMOS 6.28.
Q. In the following sentence, is a comma necessary after the word “was”? Her reply was “No, but I’ll think about it.”
A. When a verb like “said,” “stated,” “wrote,” or “replied” introduces a quotation, a comma usually follows the verb: She replied, “No, but I’ll think about it.” (“She said” and the like are sometimes called speaker or dialogue tags.) This comma is a matter of tradition rather than logic, because a comma isn’t usually needed between a verb and its object or complement: she said nothing; her reply was final. In your example, because “be” and its forms aren’t thought of as traditional dialogue verbs, a comma isn’t needed after “was” (though some writers and editors will prefer to add one for an appearance of consistency). See also CMOS 13.14 and 13.15.
Q. I belong to an editing group. In these two sentences, we believe the commas belong. Is there a name/description for this or a rule you can direct us to? “It’s what makes a barn, a barn.” “Whatever will be, will be.” That comma.
A. The closest rule seems to be the one at CMOS 6.55, described as “commas between homonyms” and offering examples like “Whatever is, is good.”
Q. Help! Here’s the problematic sentence:
Her efforts, along with the generosity of the Hearts and Art Ball Host Committee, Live Auction cochairs Joe Smith and Jane Smith, the Friends of the Museum, and our beloved patrons, have made this signature event possible.
I’m being told by a higher-up to remove the comma before “along with” and the comma after “patrons” because, in her words, “along is a preposition.” I think the commas (or better perhaps, em dashes) need to be there, but I can’t explain why. Can you give me a leg to stand on? Rewriting is not an option.
A. Your higher-up is correct that “along with” is a (double) preposition, but that does not mean commas are incorrect. In fact, the commas are useful in marking the parenthetical nature of the long and complex (and awkward) prepositional phrase:
Her efforts (along with the generosity of the Hearts and Art Ball Host Committee, Live Auction cochairs Joe Smith and Jane Smith, the Friends of the Museum, and our beloved patrons) have made this signature event possible.
The sentence is so awkward, perhaps one of your generous donors would pay the typesetting costs for changing it to something like the following.
This signature event has been made possible by her efforts, along with the generosity of the Hearts and Art Ball Host Committee, the Live Auction cochairs Joe Smith and Jane Smith, the Friends of the Museum, and our beloved patrons.
Your higher-up may also object to the comma after efforts in the revised sentence, and it is more optional there, but it will help readers navigate the complex sentence.
Q. When you start a sentence with so should it be followed by a comma? Example: So, let’s write one.
A. Because so serves different purposes, it’s not wise to make a rule that there should always or never be a comma after it. Try to hear the meaning in your sentence. If there’s a pause, consider using a comma while keeping in mind that other punctuation—or no punctuation—might make the meaning more clear than a comma.
So . . . let’s write one.
So! Let’s write one.
So—let’s write one.
So, let’s write one.
So let’s write one.
etc.
Q. Is it ever appropriate to elide a conjunction between two parts of a compound predicate and use a comma (for example, “He walked to the door, opened it.”)? I notice that many of the fiction authors I edit do this frequently.
A. In fiction weird constructions are sometimes appropriate; they should generally be tolerated until they become annoying.