On the Philosophy of Commas
I was going to simply call this entry "On Commas", but in talking with my friend C. via IM, I decided to change it to what I have.
Way back when, I did two related entries on tonights topic.[1, 2] In the first entry I've linked, I covered three different aspects of language that are often confused with each other: vocabulary, grammar, and usage. All three make up a language. I stated my opinion that for the best communication, grammar in a language should be fixed, whereas vocabulary should be dynamic. As for usage, I think that it should only have "rules" in cases of very focused writing. Otherwise, usage rules inhibit creativity of expression.
But that's not what I wanted to cover tonight; I just wanted to review where I stand.
In the second link, I very briefly discussed written language. In it, I proposed that the written form of a language was almost a separate language in its own right, in that you can express certain things in written language unambiguously that you cannot in a spoken language.
I was inspired to write this particular post because of something I read that my mother brought for me the last time my parents visited me. It was a newspaper clipping from some columnist. He had received many letters from readers complaining about the "grammar" of his sentence in regards to his use of commas. He dedicated the whole column this particular week to stating his opinion that comma usage should not be "regulated". He felt he should be able to do whatever the heck he wanted with the comma.
There seem to be two philosophies on comma usage:
The question as I see it is whether or not comma rules are grammar rules or usage rules. (As I said in the referenced entries and in my summary above, people tend to confuse these two aspects of language.) The answer to this question, I think, depends on what one feels about my idea of written language having a grammar of its own -- sometimes separate or more precise than spoken language. Yes, commas always indicate a pause. But a comma is not the only punctuation that indicates a pause. Most punctuation indicates a pause. There is no discernible difference among the length of a pauses of commas, semicolons, dashes, periods, etc. (I would not be surprised if some people would try to tell you there is, but I would doubt their statement. I would want the scientific proof of thousands of recorded speakers having their pauses measured to believe it. I think the idea is bogus, but I could be proven wrong....) So here, we have a case where a semicolon becomes useless. If commas and semicolons are simply pause indications, why the heck do we need both. Therefore, I think there must be some other reason besides pause indication for having commas and semicolons. Is it not to organize a written sentence to make it less ambiguous and/or easier to understand. Now, in spoken speech, we do use pauses to try and do this as well. The pause in speech gives the listener's brain a chance to categorize what it just heard in relation to the rest of the sentence. But sometimes, spoken speech will simply fail at this, because some sentences are too complicated for a simple pause to correct.
So it seems to me that commas in written language should follow more than just usage rules, if they are to be used to categorize things. If there is inconsistency in comma usage, this brings ambiguity into the written language. So basically, I think that many comma rules -- though I won't go so far as to say all, because some make little difference and do do nothing more than cause the reader to pause to slow down the sentence -- are actually truly grammatical, in that they have meaning, just like a preposition or particle or inflection might.
Some of you will want examples.
In this long sentence, I have included one comma in regards to which I think that it is optional and one might call it an optional-usage comma, and the second comma might be called a grammatical comma. The first was optional. It simply indicated a pause after an introductory prepositional phrase of four words or more. There is a rule for this comma, yet it is not crucial to the grammar of the sentence. The second comma removes ambiguity. Because a comma is only "required" to separate independent clauses in written English, it is clear that the subordinate clause "one might call it an optional-usage comma" is to be regarded as the direct object of the verb "think" as opposed to an independent clause as "the second comma might be called a grammatical comma" is.
I gave presents to Jack and Jill, and Humpty Dumpty, and the King. This means something entirely different than: I gave presents to Jack, and Jill, and Humpty Dumpty, and the King. In the former sentence, the lack of a comma indicates that Jack and Jill are meant to be considered as a unit. They likely only received a sole present for the two of them as a couple.
A very long time ago, I went to a house downtown, where a cute, golden-haired girl lives. This means something slightly different than: A very long time ago, I went to a house downtown where a cute, golden-haired girl lives. The first includes an almost parenthetical statement, but the second uses the subordinate clause as a descriptor for "house".
So, I hope that you can gather what I'm getting at. Sometimes, I think commas do contain meaning more than a simple pause. If something in a language contains meaning, following "rules" helps ensure that the proper meaning is communicated. This is no different than making sure you use the right definitions when using a word. Other commas, however, are nothing more than stylistic.
So -- surprise -- I think neither "philosophy" entirely correct....
Way back when, I did two related entries on tonights topic.[1, 2] In the first entry I've linked, I covered three different aspects of language that are often confused with each other: vocabulary, grammar, and usage. All three make up a language. I stated my opinion that for the best communication, grammar in a language should be fixed, whereas vocabulary should be dynamic. As for usage, I think that it should only have "rules" in cases of very focused writing. Otherwise, usage rules inhibit creativity of expression.
But that's not what I wanted to cover tonight; I just wanted to review where I stand.
In the second link, I very briefly discussed written language. In it, I proposed that the written form of a language was almost a separate language in its own right, in that you can express certain things in written language unambiguously that you cannot in a spoken language.
I was inspired to write this particular post because of something I read that my mother brought for me the last time my parents visited me. It was a newspaper clipping from some columnist. He had received many letters from readers complaining about the "grammar" of his sentence in regards to his use of commas. He dedicated the whole column this particular week to stating his opinion that comma usage should not be "regulated". He felt he should be able to do whatever the heck he wanted with the comma.
There seem to be two philosophies on comma usage:
- Commas should follow strict usage rules.
- Commas are nothing more than the symbols for pauses in speech, and therefore should only be added whenever the writer wishes to indicate a pause.
The question as I see it is whether or not comma rules are grammar rules or usage rules. (As I said in the referenced entries and in my summary above, people tend to confuse these two aspects of language.) The answer to this question, I think, depends on what one feels about my idea of written language having a grammar of its own -- sometimes separate or more precise than spoken language. Yes, commas always indicate a pause. But a comma is not the only punctuation that indicates a pause. Most punctuation indicates a pause. There is no discernible difference among the length of a pauses of commas, semicolons, dashes, periods, etc. (I would not be surprised if some people would try to tell you there is, but I would doubt their statement. I would want the scientific proof of thousands of recorded speakers having their pauses measured to believe it. I think the idea is bogus, but I could be proven wrong....) So here, we have a case where a semicolon becomes useless. If commas and semicolons are simply pause indications, why the heck do we need both. Therefore, I think there must be some other reason besides pause indication for having commas and semicolons. Is it not to organize a written sentence to make it less ambiguous and/or easier to understand. Now, in spoken speech, we do use pauses to try and do this as well. The pause in speech gives the listener's brain a chance to categorize what it just heard in relation to the rest of the sentence. But sometimes, spoken speech will simply fail at this, because some sentences are too complicated for a simple pause to correct.
So it seems to me that commas in written language should follow more than just usage rules, if they are to be used to categorize things. If there is inconsistency in comma usage, this brings ambiguity into the written language. So basically, I think that many comma rules -- though I won't go so far as to say all, because some make little difference and do do nothing more than cause the reader to pause to slow down the sentence -- are actually truly grammatical, in that they have meaning, just like a preposition or particle or inflection might.
Some of you will want examples.
In this long sentence, I have included one comma in regards to which I think that it is optional and one might call it an optional-usage comma, and the second comma might be called a grammatical comma. The first was optional. It simply indicated a pause after an introductory prepositional phrase of four words or more. There is a rule for this comma, yet it is not crucial to the grammar of the sentence. The second comma removes ambiguity. Because a comma is only "required" to separate independent clauses in written English, it is clear that the subordinate clause "one might call it an optional-usage comma" is to be regarded as the direct object of the verb "think" as opposed to an independent clause as "the second comma might be called a grammatical comma" is.
I gave presents to Jack and Jill, and Humpty Dumpty, and the King. This means something entirely different than: I gave presents to Jack, and Jill, and Humpty Dumpty, and the King. In the former sentence, the lack of a comma indicates that Jack and Jill are meant to be considered as a unit. They likely only received a sole present for the two of them as a couple.
A very long time ago, I went to a house downtown, where a cute, golden-haired girl lives. This means something slightly different than: A very long time ago, I went to a house downtown where a cute, golden-haired girl lives. The first includes an almost parenthetical statement, but the second uses the subordinate clause as a descriptor for "house".
So, I hope that you can gather what I'm getting at. Sometimes, I think commas do contain meaning more than a simple pause. If something in a language contains meaning, following "rules" helps ensure that the proper meaning is communicated. This is no different than making sure you use the right definitions when using a word. Other commas, however, are nothing more than stylistic.
So -- surprise -- I think neither "philosophy" entirely correct....