I honestly can't remember the rules about the West Virginia one. I think it helps with the flow of the sentence and keeping the city of "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia" as a separate idea and entity from began (because West Virginia didn't begin on said date), but I don't know that grammar strictly requires it
( ... )
I know there is a rule that commas should appear after all [City], [State], references and after all [Month] [Day], [Year], references, which is what the grammar textbook I use teaches. However, I have a vague recollection of hearing or reading somewhere that this rule is now considered outdated.
Moreover, as you say, those commas sometimes seem to make sentences unnecessarily cumbersome. In the example I gave, I don't mind the comma after 1859 too much, since it's followed by a conjunction anyway, and it's normal to see commas before conjunctions. But the one after "West Virginia" bugs me.
That's an interesting point. We don't have an English equivalent of l’Académie française so who decides what is "correct English"? :/ I disagree with my year 2 teacher that "jail" is incorrect in Australia and that it's an exclusively American usage. That was 1987, and I don't know anyone my age or younger in Australia who spells it "gaol" these days, so, I was right, and it's true that language is the purest form of democracy.
The way I've been taught and practice it, I've always used these types of commas for a sentence like that. The first comma you questioned is required because if you read it out loud, you naturally pause there. That's always a good indicator regardless when you read things out loud. The second comma is debatable but I do believe that the "rules" require it to be there, too.
Do you really think so? One of the reasons I question the placement of those commas is because I use that rule of thumb as well and I *don't* feel a natural pause there (especially after "West Virginia"). Therefore, I feel that, as springdove put it in her comment, those commas disrupt the flow of the sentence. Hmm...I guess YMMV on the "put comma where natural pause occurs" rule.
Use commas to set off all geographical names, items in dates (except the month and day), addresses (except the street number and name), and titles in names.
Birmingham, Alabama, gets its name from Birmingham, England. July 22, 1959, was a momentous day in his life. Who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC? Rachel B. Lake, MD, will be the principal speaker.
(When you use just the month and the year, no comma is necessary after the month or year: "The average temperatures for July 1998 are the highest on record for that month.")
you wanted a long discussion, right?angua9May 19 2007, 16:42:36 UTC
Comma after West Virginia:
I believe that the argument for it being there would be that "West Virginia" is what I believe is called an appositive (?) which needs a second comma to "come back from" the comma that set it off in the first place.
The argument against the comma would be that "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia" is a place name just like "West Virginia" or "Harper's Ferry" and in that case you would NOT put a comma after it. This is what I believe.
You can't put a comma for pause purposes because "John Brown's Raid on X" is not a complete clause. Although you could, if you wanted, put commas both before and after the location, like this:
John Brown's raid, on Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, began on...
I think that would be acceptable, but weird. Normally (applying the "my sister Carol" vs. "my sister, Carol," rule), you wouldn't do that unless it was the only raid he ever was involved in. Which maybe it was!
Comma after 1859:I believe it is acceptable (though not recommended) to put a comma there for pausing purposes,
( ... )
Re: you wanted a long discussion, right?hymniaMay 19 2007, 17:53:47 UTC
I was hoping for an answer from you, actually. And a long one is fine. :D
Yes, I pretty much see it the same way: "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia" is just a place and "October 16, 1859" is just a day. The comma after 1859 looks all right to me because of its placement next to "and", but I could be just as happy without it. I don't like the "West Virginia" comma at all, though I understand the justification for it.
Re: you wanted a long discussion, right?ginny_tMay 29 2007, 11:52:04 UTC
While we're pulling out the grammar language … (sorry for late reply - last week was crazybusy)
Apposition is renaming a noun. There are two nouns for one thing. (Unfortunately, in my pre-tea state, I cannot come up with an example of this that isn't lame. *hangs head
( ... )
The comma after West Virgina is there because you could take out West Virginia and the sentence would still make sense, so it's like a parenthesis. It avoids parsing it as 'West Virginia began...'
Comma before 'and' is fine but not essential. The one that looks wrong to me is the one in the middle of the date. Of course I would write it as 16 October 1859, but I think once you have a comma before 1859 you have to have one after it.
Yes, I see. That justification makes sense to me. I just feel that it's so natural to treat [City], [State] as one unit, that it's unnecessary to treat "West Virgina" like an appositive and more sensible, as angua9 explained above, to treat "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia" as a place name.
The one that looks wrong to me is the one in the middle of the date.
Now that one I *know* is right. It just looks wrong to you because you write dates differently. Again, I think it's natural, if you're used to seeing dates written this way, to view "October 16, 1859" as one unit, rather than treating "1859" as an appositive.
After re-reading the sentence, I'd like to change my response to the second question to "is acceptable, but not really needed." I often include a comma between coordinating conjunctions with 'and' (even though some grammar freaks tell me not to). However, this comma has nothing to do with 'October 16, 1859.' For example, there is no comma after '1859' in the following sentence:
October 16, 1859 was a bright and sunny day.
My reasons are more or less the same as Angua's, so I won't reiterate -- especially since I would apparently be preaching to the choir!
Also, the Teacher's Guide may disagree with us, but I believe the omission of the comma is in concordance with Associated Press style. It's been a while since I was a copy editor, though, so I could be wrong. :)
Comments 24
Reply
Moreover, as you say, those commas sometimes seem to make sentences unnecessarily cumbersome. In the example I gave, I don't mind the comma after 1859 too much, since it's followed by a conjunction anyway, and it's normal to see commas before conjunctions. But the one after "West Virginia" bugs me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Birmingham, Alabama, gets its name from Birmingham, England.
July 22, 1959, was a momentous day in his life.
Who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC?
Rachel B. Lake, MD, will be the principal speaker.
(When you use just the month and the year, no comma is necessary after the month or year: "The average temperatures for July 1998 are the highest on record for that month.")
(From a text book ^^)
Reply
Reply
I believe that the argument for it being there would be that "West Virginia" is what I believe is called an appositive (?) which needs a second comma to "come back from" the comma that set it off in the first place.
The argument against the comma would be that "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia" is a place name just like "West Virginia" or "Harper's Ferry" and in that case you would NOT put a comma after it. This is what I believe.
You can't put a comma for pause purposes because "John Brown's Raid on X" is not a complete clause. Although you could, if you wanted, put commas both before and after the location, like this:
John Brown's raid, on Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, began on...
I think that would be acceptable, but weird. Normally (applying the "my sister Carol" vs. "my sister, Carol," rule), you wouldn't do that unless it was the only raid he ever was involved in. Which maybe it was!
Comma after 1859:I believe it is acceptable (though not recommended) to put a comma there for pausing purposes, ( ... )
Reply
Yes, I pretty much see it the same way: "Harper's Ferry, West Virginia" is just a place and "October 16, 1859" is just a day. The comma after 1859 looks all right to me because of its placement next to "and", but I could be just as happy without it. I don't like the "West Virginia" comma at all, though I understand the justification for it.
Reply
Apposition is renaming a noun. There are two nouns for one thing. (Unfortunately, in my pre-tea state, I cannot come up with an example of this that isn't lame. *hangs head ( ... )
Reply
Comma before 'and' is fine but not essential. The one that looks wrong to me is the one in the middle of the date. Of course I would write it as 16 October 1859, but I think once you have a comma before 1859 you have to have one after it.
Reply
The one that looks wrong to me is the one in the middle of the date.
Now that one I *know* is right. It just looks wrong to you because you write dates differently. Again, I think it's natural, if you're used to seeing dates written this way, to view "October 16, 1859" as one unit, rather than treating "1859" as an appositive.
Reply
October 16, 1859 was a bright and sunny day.
My reasons are more or less the same as Angua's, so I won't reiterate -- especially since I would apparently be preaching to the choir!
Also, the Teacher's Guide may disagree with us, but I believe the omission of the comma is in concordance with Associated Press style. It's been a while since I was a copy editor, though, so I could be wrong. :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment