Can commas be allowed where it normally shouldn't in order to add a pause in fiction

[Green_Knight]

I've often wondered about that myself. I count a number of colourful little flags on the front page (somewhere, anyway), and there's no Stars and Stripes there (no Southern Cross either, but no matter). So are the flags aspirational, suggestive of an intent to make the site international, or merely decorational?

Regardless, Laurel has never said to me de-aussify your writing. My spelling, colloquialisms, geography, use of what is basically pommy style, none of that seems to offend. I drive on the left too, shock horror.

I'd never even heard of the Chicago Style Manual until I arrived here. I vaguely used some green book published by the Australian government - "The Australian Style Guide", I think it was called, an imaginative name - whenever I was in doubt. But that was for business writing, so it probably doesn't count.

But Pilot's bookshelf, no, I don't think it's listed in the FAQs as gospel truth. Maybe there's a special page that can only be seen by Americans....

Precisely. No matter where its servers are physically located (that may have to change with the new regime in place in the US), Lit is clearly intended to be an international site, inviting and accepting contributions in Spanish, German, French, Dutch, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, and other languages, as well as English and American. It would be ludicrous for the site to accept a story written in German and then to insist that its punctuation and grammar follow the American style.

Rest assured, there is nowhere in the FAQs or the Submission Guidelines where the use of American style is mentioned, let alone mandated. It is only in the pilot's fevered imagination and in the 'How To' essays that he and other authors have submitted that it is otherwise. All that Laurel seems to require is that the style used in a story is consistent, which is reasonable and sensible. Someone is far more likely to make mistakes if they are forced to use a style with which they are not familiar.

So we shouldn't take too much notice of the dear old pilot's ramblings. Indeed, in one of his essays, he says that 'This isn't the New Yorker you are writing for. Readers here will tolerate a few typos and missing commas...' and commends both the Chicago Manual of Style for U.S. style and the Oxford Guide to Style for UK style.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, so GK must be Laurel to know what she requires and doesn't.

Is that like all of those preachers who tell you what God wants?

 

[Green_Knight]

Ah, so GK must be Laurel to know what she requires and doesn't.

Is that like all of those preachers who tell you what God wants?

Try reading properly:

All that Laurel seems to require

As it says at the end of the advert, 'Should have gone to Specsavers'.

 

[garbonzo607]

I agree 100% that the purpose of punctuation is to help convey meaning, but that's the purpose of grammar rules generally, so long as they're rightly understood.

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement. The modern trend away from too much comma use makes the task of using commas more clear-cut and simpler. The first rule is to use commas where the rules of grammar dictate their use. The second is, in cases where the use is discretionary, not to use a comma unless there's a good reason to.

If you look at the sentences that have been offered as examples throughout this thread, in most cases the question of comma use can be decided simply by understanding exactly what's going on grammatically in the sentence. About half the cases can be fixed by addressing the problem of non-parallelism. It's a very common problem; I've found it in my own writing.

For example, the sentence

She was beautiful and skinny, and looked out of place amongst the other men.

isn't parallel. It can be fixed by adding "she" before "looked" and deleting "other." Once you do that, you have two independent clauses, and you need the comma. The comma alone doesn't fix the problem of lack of parallelism. But solving the grammatical problem answers the question of the comma. In this case, too, the grammatically correct solution is also the solution that enhances the meaning of the sentence, because it eliminates ambiguity in the relationship between "was beautiful and skinny" and "looked out of place."

I think your example of the sentence about the tannery is a good example of a subtler case. "before we break down" is a phrase that modifies the verb "get", but it's separated from the word by several words. It doesn't modify "tannery." I wouldn't put a comma there, but I can see the sense of another person's decision to put it there.

I've never heard of parrellism used in this way before. Is there a good article on it?

It seems to me according to this test, it's saying the exact opposite:

http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-exercise-parallelism.php

Is this saying that you shouldn't have two or more independent clauses, since those result in wrong answers?

For instance, it is shown as this being correct:

"I advise you to sleep early, eat healthy food and exercise regularly."

The way I am understanding you is that you would say instead, "I advise you to sleep early, to eat healthy food and to exercise regularly."

This website finds either one to be correct:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/623/01/

Mary likes to hike, to swim, and to ride a bicycle.

OR

Mary likes to hike, swim, and ride a bicycle.

 

[garbonzo607]

The examples you gave would likely be rendered this way:

I got an uneasy feeling in my stomach but chalked it up to John’s call earlier.

Despite how I feel about dealing with idiots, I get good metrics on our call system, and I usually get good ratings on my performance.

I've corrected the other sentences with your suggestions, while keeping the commas. These two sentences I'm still hung on however.

Just curious, why do you recommend adding "I" to the second sentence, but not the first? I hesitate to repeat the same pronouns when it's obvious who something is referring to. I can't fix this like I did the others by mixing a noun with a pronoun though. There's no replacement for "I".

I just find it odd that all of a sudden a comma is okay if a noun/pronoun is added, even if the noun/pronoun is unnecessary. For me, the unnecessary pronoun (plus a comma!) interrupts the flow of the story more than the one comma, no? Why must we have the unnecessary baggage?

 

[SimonDoom]

I've never heard of parrellism used in this way before. Is there a good article on it?

It seems to me according to this test, it's saying the exact opposite:

http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-exercise-parallelism.php

Is this saying that you shouldn't have two or more independent clauses, since those result in wrong answers?

For instance, it is shown as this being correct:

"I advise you to sleep early, eat healthy food and exercise regularly."

The way I am understanding you is that you would say instead, "I advise you to sleep early, to eat healthy food and to exercise regularly."

This website finds either one to be correct:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/623/01/

Mary likes to hike, to swim, and to ride a bicycle.

OR

Mary likes to hike, swim, and ride a bicycle.

I'm not sure what your question is directed to. I agree with all the examples you give and the sources you cite, but neither you nor they are inconsistent with what I'm saying. It may be that I was not clear enough about what the parallelism problem is in the examples I gave. I was using the sentences that you had referred to, and pointing out that there were parallelism issues in them. Those issues are not present in the examples cited above.

Examples, playing on the ones you give above:

Mary likes to hike, swim, and ride a bicycle. That's parallel.

Mary likes to hike, to swim, and to ride a bicycle. That's parallel.

Mary likes to hike, swim, and is a Capricorn. That's not parallel. The problem lies in combining two active verbs and a linking verb in this way. If you look at the sentences listed in your original post, several of the cited sentences have exactly this problem.

One solution to the problem is to create two independent clauses: Mary likes to hike and swim, and she is a Capricorn. That's inelegant, but it's grammatically correct. Better would be something like "Mary, a Capricorn, likes to hike and swim."

Here's the rule from the latest version of the Chicago Manual of Style:

5.212 Parallel structure generally
Parallel constructions—series of like sentence elements—are common in good writing. Compound structures may link words {win, lose, or draw}, phrases {government of the people, by the people, for the people}, dependent clauses {that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness}, or sentences {I came; I saw; I conquered}. Every element of a parallel series must be a functional match of the others (word, phrase, clause, sentence) and serve the same grammatical function in the sentence (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, adverb). When linked items are not like items, the syntax of the sentence breaks down:

WRONG: She did volunteer work in the community kitchen, the homeless shelter, and taught free ESL classes offered by her church.
RIGHT: She did volunteer work in the community kitchen and the homeless shelter, and taught free ESL classes offered by her church.
WRONG: The candidate is a former county judge, state senator, and served two terms as attorney general.
RIGHT: The candidate is a former county judge, state senator, and two-term attorney general.


Several of the sentences in your original post have the problem described in the second "wrong" sentence above.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've corrected the other sentences with your suggestions, while keeping the commas. These two sentences I'm still hung on however.

Just curious, why do you recommend adding "I" to the second sentence, but not the first? I hesitate to repeat the same pronouns when it's obvious who something is referring to. I can't fix this like I did the others by mixing a noun with a pronoun though. There's no replacement for "I".

I just find it odd that all of a sudden a comma is okay if a noun/pronoun is added, even if the noun/pronoun is unnecessary. For me, the unnecessary pronoun (plus a comma!) interrupts the flow of the story more than the one comma, no? Why must we have the unnecessary baggage?

I agree with sr71plt on both of these. Here's why:

In the first one, you have a compound predicate joined by the conjunction "but." There's no need for a comma.

The second one is trickier, but the problem, once again, is parallelism. Why?

Here's the sentence:

Despite how I feel about dealing with idiots, I get good metrics on our call system, and I usually get good ratings on my performance.

As you drafted it, the second part was "I get good metrics on our call system and usually get good ratings on my performance." It has a compound predicate joined by "and."

The problem is the first part of the compound predicate starts with "get", but the second part starts with "usually." It's subtle, but you are joining elements that are not functionally equivalent. In the first part you always get good metrics, and in the second part you "usually" get good marks. So it's functionally better if you decouple them from a compound predicate and make them into independent clauses. It sounds better, too.

 

[Handley_Page]

Try reading properly:

As it says at the end of the advert, 'Should have gone to Specsavers'.

Sad s I am to admit it, I doubt Pilot would get to see that excellent advert.
It does have some really nice-looking ladies, though!

 

[garbonzo607]

I agree with sr71plt on both of these. Here's why:

In the first one, you have a compound predicate joined by the conjunction "but." There's no need for a comma.

The second one is trickier, but the problem, once again, is parallelism. Why?

Here's the sentence:

Despite how I feel about dealing with idiots, I get good metrics on our call system, and I usually get good ratings on my performance.

As you drafted it, the second part was "I get good metrics on our call system and usually get good ratings on my performance." It has a compound predicate joined by "and."

The problem is the first part of the compound predicate starts with "get", but the second part starts with "usually." It's subtle, but you are joining elements that are not functionally equivalent. In the first part you always get good metrics, and in the second part you "usually" get good marks. So it's functionally better if you decouple them from a compound predicate and make them into independent clauses. It sounds better, too.

Thank you very much, I'm starting to understand now. Would it be the same problem if this were the sentence?

"I always get good metrics on system A, and sometimes get good ratings on system B."

In the example above, you'd recommend inserting an "I" after "and", right?

The problem I have in trying to learn is that all of the examples you cite from sources are always lists. "I do this, this, and that." And not, "I do this, and that." Does parallelism still apply to the latter?

How about this?

"I still get good metrics on our call system, despite how I feel about dealing with idiots, and usually get good ratings on my performance, too."

 

[Hypoxia]

Comma comma down doobie-doo down-down
Comma comma down doobie-doo down-down
Comma comma down doobie-doo down-down
Breaking up is ha-ard to-oo do

 

[CarlusMagnus]

Mary likes to hike, swim, and is a Capricorn. That's not parallel. The problem lies in combining two active verbs and a linking verb in this way.

The problem is worse than that. The verbs hike and swim appear as infinitives here, in verbal phrases used as objects of likes. But they are combined with the finite verb is, whose subject is Mary. A grammatical parallel structure would be Mary likes to hike, swim, and be a Capricorn. Better to use gerunds here: Mary likes hiking, swimming, and being a Capricorn.

Better still would be to recast the whole thing to avoid attempting a parallel structure based on two activities and one state.

 

[sr71plt]

"I always get good metrics on system A, and sometimes get good ratings on system B."

In the example above, you'd recommend inserting an "I" after "and", right?

In that sentence, I would just take the comma out. English isn't precise. It hangs on how closely clauses relate and the rhythm of the sentence. Making this particular one a sentence with two independent clauses just sounds too clunky.

"I still get good metrics on our call system, despite how I feel about dealing with idiots, and usually get good ratings on my performance, too."

The switching back and forth in emphasis in this construction makes it awkward. I'd break it into two sentences:

"I still get good metrics on our call system, despite how I feel about dealing with idiots. I usually get good ratings on my performance, too."

 

[SimonDoom]

The problem is worse than that. The verbs hike and swim appear as infinitives here, in verbal phrases used as objects of likes. But they are combined with the finite verb is, whose subject is Mary. A grammatical parallel structure would be Mary likes to hike, swim, and be a Capricorn. Better to use gerunds here: Mary likes hiking, swimming, and being a Capricorn.

Better still would be to recast the whole thing to avoid attempting a parallel structure based on two activities and one state.

That's a good catch about the infinitives, but your revisions don't take care of the problem of combining active verbs (hike and swim) with a linking verb (be). It doesn't sound right (to me) to say "Mary likes hiking, swimming, and being a Capricorn." It's better to put the active verbs in one predicate and the linking verb in another, or to change the sentence altogether, as in "Mary, a Capricorn, likes hiking and swimming."

 

[CarlusMagnus]

That's a good catch about the infinitives, but your revisions don't take care of the problem of combining active verbs (hike and swim) with a linking verb (be). It doesn't sound right (to me) to say "Mary likes hiking, swimming, and being a Capricorn." It's better to put the active verbs in one predicate and the linking verb in another, or to change the sentence altogether, as in "Mary, a Capricorn, likes hiking and swimming."

I didn't say that I'd accomplished good sentences. I said that they were grammatical. And, as I acknowledged, it would be better not to attempt parallelism here. But I think this is more a matter of style than of grammar.

 

[Morwen]

Why would anyone think Laurel is the queen of grammar? She's never been that or Manu, or this whole site. There are better grammar sites out there. Not getting this.

Anyway to your question, about comma splices, yes it's done in the literary world so much I don't even notice it. But maybe I should, you know.