So confused- Grammar Question

[LadynStFreknBed]

Do you use a comma before a phrase starting with "which" and "where"? I tend to always use a comma before "which," but now hear it depends on the type of clause that follows.

Here are 2 examples from a children's book that I am working on:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

 

[Alex De Kok]

My take - read the sentence out loud. If there's a natural pause just before the 'which' or 'where', include the comma. If the sentence flows, leave it out. Punctuation is supposed to aid clarity, not obscure it.

Alex

 

[CharleyH]

My take - read the sentence out loud. If there's a natural pause just before the 'which' or 'where', include the comma. If the sentence flows, leave it out. Punctuation is supposed to aid clarity, not obscure it.

Alex

Yeah, that's what my English teacher told me in grade 10 and because of her I now have a comma fetish.

 

[Emperor_Nero]

My professor for journalism editing said to read it out loud and if the comma sounds natural, use which. If it doesn't sound natural with the pause, which is the wrong word and it should probably be replaced with that.

 

[Alex De Kok]

My professor for journalism editing said to read it out loud and if the comma sounds natural, use which. If it doesn't sound natural with the pause, which is the wrong word and it should probably be replaced with that.

Aamazing how often something so simple gives one a 'duh' moment.

Alex.

 

[Pure]

it depends on whether the 'which' or 'where' clause is A. restrictive [essential to the meaning of the sentence, roughly,] or B. non restrictive.

A. they hit him where it hurts

B. they bombed Dresden, where fine china was made.

---

the second example sentence in the initial posting, about the sky, is clearly of type B.

the first example sentence, about the chest, is closer to B, also. compare:


Pure's example: the railings on the sunken vessel were as encrusted as pirates' chests which have been under the ocean for centuries.

(type A).

 

[BlackShanglan]

Do you use a comma before a phrase starting with "which" and "where"? I tend to always use a comma before "which," but now hear it depends on the type of clause that follows.

Here are 2 examples from a children's book that I am working on:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

All right. Flog me and tie tin cans to my tail if you like, because I hate the "read it out loud and see if it sounds right" maxim. I hate it for three reasons:

(1) It prevents people from learning the actual rules governing comma usage and convinces them that they do not exist.

(2) It lures the innocent into making a vast array of grammatical errors stemming from the fact that commas, periods, dashes, and semicolons all create pauses and all sound pretty much identical - but should not be used in the same way.

(3) It encourages people to believe in rules that do not exist, adding to their confusion about the rules that do exist.

As a case in point of number three, there is no grammatical rule about comma usage specific to the words "which" or "where." There are grammatical rules about comma usage and restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases, structures which often use those words, but the rule is about the punctuation of certain types of phrases, not about the words.

Both of the examples the original poster has given contain modifying phrases - groups of words that describe an object elsewhere in the sentence. Below, I've italicized the modifying phrases and boldfaced the things they modify:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

The rule for comma usage with such phrases is that non-restrictive modifying phrases are set off with commas and restrictive modifying phrases are not. So what are restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases?

A restrictive phrase further restricts or limits the number of things that the original object could have been referring to. Here is an example:

"We went to the library and I pointed to the shelf where I left the book."

"Shelf" could refer to any shelf in the library. But the modifying phrase here further restricts or limits what the speaker is referring to - actually, only the shelf where s/he left the book. That makes the modifying phrase restrictive. It should not be preceded by a comma.

A non-restrictive modifying phrase does not further restrict or limit the number of things that the modified object could have been referring to. Here is an example of that:

"We went up to the fifth floor of the library, where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before."

It would be an unusual circumstance in which the speaker could have been referring to more than one library; in most cases, then, "the fifth floor of the library" could mean only one possible location. For this reason, the additional information (it's where the speaker left the book) doesn't further narrow the number of places that fit the description. The modifying phrase is non-restrictive, then, and does need a comma before it. If the sentence continued on past the modifying phrase, it would also need a comma after it: "We went up to the fifth floor of the library, where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before, and started looking for it."

What makes your examples from the children's book tricky is that they are a good example of the fact that context can make the same exact sentence function in different ways. In the example above, for instance, it's possible for the phrase "where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before" to be restrictive; if there was more than one library that the speaker could have been referring to, and if the additional information that it was the one where he'd left the book then narrowed the possibilities to one, the phrase would be restrictive and would not take commas.

So, for the example from the children's book, there are two possibilities:

(1) A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest which hides gold and other treasure.

Restrictive modifying phrase with no comma. The chest is not just any pirate's chest, but specifically one of the smaller group of chests that contain gold and treasure. Only those chests are being compared to the dream, and not all pirate chests fit that description.

(2) A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Non-restrictive modifying phrase with a comma. Here, you're telling the audience that the modifying phrase does not further narrow the things that could be identified by the phrase "pirate's chest." For that to be true, then all pirates' chests must contain gold and treasure. Now the modifying phrase isn't limiting meaning (just the chests with treasure in them) but instead supplying a definition: a pirate chest, that thing that always hides gold and treasure.

The same is true of the other sentence. Without a comma, dreams are like a specific sort of night sky - one where stars and comets dance, which isn't always the case. With the comma, dreams are like all night skies in general, which are all characterized by dancing stars and comets.

Now. If that's not enough to make people wish they'd never broached the topic, I don't know what is.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

My professor for journalism editing said to read it out loud and if the comma sounds natural, use which. If it doesn't sound natural with the pause, which is the wrong word and it should probably be replaced with that.

The full version of that rule is that traditionally, "which" is used with nonrestrictive elements and "that" with restrictive ones. "Which" would therefore normally take a comma and "that" would not. However, knowing the rule will guide you more clearly than trusting your ear.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, bless you, Pure. Obviously my immense blob of text took ages to type, which is why I didn't notice you gently and much more succinctly providing the answer.

 

[CharleyH]

All right. Flog me and tie tin cans to my tail if you like, because I hate the "read it out loud and see if it sounds right" maxim. I hate it for three reasons:

(1) It prevents people from learning the actual rules governing comma usage and convinces them that they do not exist.

(2) It lures the innocent into making a vast array of grammatical errors stemming from the fact that commas, periods, dashes, and semicolons all create pauses and all sound pretty much identical - but should not be used in the same way.

(3) It encourages people to believe in rules that do not exist, adding to their confusion about the rules that do exist.

As a case in point of number three, there is no grammatical rule about comma usage specific to the words "which" or "where." There are grammatical rules about comma usage and restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases, structures which often use commas, but the rule is about the punctuation of certain types of phrases, not about those words.

Both of the examples the original poster has given contain modifying phrases - groups of words that describe an object elsewhere in the sentence. Below, I've italicized the modifying phrases and boldfaced the things they modify:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

The rule for comma usage with such phrases is that non-restrictive modifying phrases are set off with commas and restrictive modifying phrases are not. So what are restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases?

A restrictive phrase further restricts or limits the number of things that the original object could have been referring to. Here is an example:

"We went to the library and I pointed to the shelf where I left the book."

"Shelf" could refer to any shelf in the library. But the modifying phrase here further restricts or limits what the speaker is referring to - actually, only the shelf where s/he left the book. That makes the modifying phrase restrictive. It should not be preceded by a comma.

A non-restrictive modifying phrase does not further restrict or limit the number of things that the modified object could have been referring to. Here is an example of that:

"We went up to the fifth floor of the library, where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before."

It would be an unusual circumstance in which the speaker could have been referring to more than one library; in most cases, then, "the fifth floor of the library" could mean only one possible location. For this reason, the additional information (it's where the speaker left the book) doesn't further narrow the number of places that fit the description. The modifying phrase is non-restrictive, then, and does need a comma before it. If the sentence continued on past the modifying phrase, it would also need a comma after it: "We went up to the fifth floor of the library, where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before, and started looking for it."

What makes your examples from the children's book tricky is that they are a good example of the fact that context can make the same exact sentence function in different ways. In the example above, for instance, it's possible for the phrase "where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before" to be restrictive; if there was more than one library that the speaker could have been referring to, and if the additional information that it was the one where he'd left the book then narrowed the possibilities to one, the phrase would be restrictive and would not take commas.

So, for the example from the children's book, there are two possibilities:

(1) A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest which hides gold and other treasure.

Restrictive modifying phrase with no comma. The chest is not just any pirate's chest, but specifically one of the smaller group of chests that contain gold and treasure. Only those chests are being compared to the dream, and not all pirate chests fit that description.

(2) A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Non-restrictive modifying phrase with a comma. Here, you're telling the audience that the modifying phrase does not further narrow the things that could be identified by the phrase "pirate's chest." For that to be true, then all pirates' chests must contain gold and treasure. Now the modifying phrase isn't limiting meaning (just the chests with treasure in them) but instead supplying a definition: a pirate chest, that thing that always hides gold and treasure.

The same is true of the other sentence. Without a comma, dreams are like a specific sort of night sky - one where stars and comets dance, which isn't always the case. With the comma, dreams are like all night skies in general, which are all characterized by dancing stars and comets.

Now. If that's not enough to make people wish they'd never broached the topic, I don't know what is.

Shanglan

Finally, an explanation! Thank you.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Finally, an explanation! Thank you.

Bless you for being the only person in world likely to be grateful for a spontaneous lecture on restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases. I do adore you.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

Thank you!!! I really appreciate your answers.

 

[CharleyH]

Bless you for being the only person in world likely to be grateful for a spontaneous lecture on restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases. I do adore you.

You're in luck. I adore you also.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Do you use a comma before a phrase starting with "which" and "where"? I tend to always use a comma before "which," but now hear it depends on the type of clause that follows.

Here are 2 examples from a children's book that I am working on:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

Regardless of grammar rules, I think so in this case-- the commas create a rhythm in the lines.

Shang, what a delicious discourse!

 

[English Lady]

Shanglan will be be my grammar teacher, please?

 

[Edward Teach]

Now. If that's not enough to make people wish they'd never broached the topic, I don't know what is.

Shanglan

It's an excellent explanation, Shang.

 

[angelicminx]

All right. Flog me and tie tin cans to my tail if you like, because I hate the "read it out loud and see if it sounds right" maxim. I hate it for three reasons:

(1) It prevents people from learning the actual rules governing comma usage and convinces them that they do not exist.

(2) It lures the innocent into making a vast array of grammatical errors stemming from the fact that commas, periods, dashes, and semicolons all create pauses and all sound pretty much identical - but should not be used in the same way.

(3) It encourages people to believe in rules that do not exist, adding to their confusion about the rules that do exist.

As a case in point of number three, there is no grammatical rule about comma usage specific to the words "which" or "where." There are grammatical rules about comma usage and restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases, structures which often use commas, but the rule is about the punctuation of certain types of phrases, not about those words.

Both of the examples the original poster has given contain modifying phrases - groups of words that describe an object elsewhere in the sentence. Below, I've italicized the modifying phrases and boldfaced the things they modify:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

The rule for comma usage with such phrases is that non-restrictive modifying phrases are set off with commas and restrictive modifying phrases are not. So what are restrictive and non-restrictive modifying phrases?

A restrictive phrase further restricts or limits the number of things that the original object could have been referring to. Here is an example:

"We went to the library and I pointed to the shelf where I left the book."

"Shelf" could refer to any shelf in the library. But the modifying phrase here further restricts or limits what the speaker is referring to - actually, only the shelf where s/he left the book. That makes the modifying phrase restrictive. It should not be preceded by a comma.

A non-restrictive modifying phrase does not further restrict or limit the number of things that the modified object could have been referring to. Here is an example of that:

"We went up to the fifth floor of the library, where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before."

It would be an unusual circumstance in which the speaker could have been referring to more than one library; in most cases, then, "the fifth floor of the library" could mean only one possible location. For this reason, the additional information (it's where the speaker left the book) doesn't further narrow the number of places that fit the description. The modifying phrase is non-restrictive, then, and does need a comma before it. If the sentence continued on past the modifying phrase, it would also need a comma after it: "We went up to the fifth floor of the library, where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before, and started looking for it."

What makes your examples from the children's book tricky is that they are a good example of the fact that context can make the same exact sentence function in different ways. In the example above, for instance, it's possible for the phrase "where I'd left the book on a shelf some days before" to be restrictive; if there was more than one library that the speaker could have been referring to, and if the additional information that it was the one where he'd left the book then narrowed the possibilities to one, the phrase would be restrictive and would not take commas.

So, for the example from the children's book, there are two possibilities:

(1) A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest which hides gold and other treasure.

Restrictive modifying phrase with no comma. The chest is not just any pirate's chest, but specifically one of the smaller group of chests that contain gold and treasure. Only those chests are being compared to the dream, and not all pirate chests fit that description.

(2) A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Non-restrictive modifying phrase with a comma. Here, you're telling the audience that the modifying phrase does not further narrow the things that could be identified by the phrase "pirate's chest." For that to be true, then all pirates' chests must contain gold and treasure. Now the modifying phrase isn't limiting meaning (just the chests with treasure in them) but instead supplying a definition: a pirate chest, that thing that always hides gold and treasure.

The same is true of the other sentence. Without a comma, dreams are like a specific sort of night sky - one where stars and comets dance, which isn't always the case. With the comma, dreams are like all night skies in general, which are all characterized by dancing stars and comets.

Now. If that's not enough to make people wish they'd never broached the topic, I don't know what is.

Shanglan

I you. I didn't retain much of the information I was given in English class and this was a great explanation.

 

[Remec]

I you. I didn't retain much of the information I was given in English class and this was a great explanation.

I retain more than I think I do when I read discourses like this and understand (or even anticipate) every bit of it. But, as my English comp professor told us, "If you can't remember exactly go to your Harcourt&Brace or another one of the textbooks I'm having you buy for this class. That's why you're buying them."

 

[galaxygoddess]

You can only trust a grammar checker on a program so far as well.

I use word to type my stuff, and I'll type something exactly how I want it, and it'll trigger the grammar checker, when i go to check, either it throws commas in in appropriate places, or doesn't like my word usage. It drives me crazy. There is a website that posts "cutesy" stories to their "newsletter" that are relevant to the site itself. For the longest time they must have used Word to proof some of the stories because everytime I submitted, it would kick my story out for "comma usage" and it would drive me crazy, because in order for me to not be kicked out, I would have to use word's grammar checker and accept it's suggestions and it would make large portions of my stories not make a lick of sense. I would have to practically retype the whole blooming thing so I stopped trying to submit to them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I retain more than I think I do when I read discourses like this and understand (or even anticipate) every bit of it. But, as my English comp professor told us, "If you can't remember exactly go to your Harcourt&Brace or another one of the textbooks I'm having you buy for this class. That's why you're buying them."

Amen. I still have mine, although I don't often use it now. It's done most of its work. If you follow the rule of "when in doubt, look it up," you will keep returning to those rules - and eventually you will know them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Regardless of grammar rules, I think so in this case-- the commas create a rhythm in the lines.

Shang, what a delicious discourse!

Thanks awfully, Stella.

I think the rhythm worth listening to in a case like this, in which either version makes sense and can convey a meaning that suits the author's intent. However, if you're trying to describe something with precision or, heaven forfend, constructing a legally binding document, it's vital to know that those little variations in rhythm also create real and specific variations in meaning. Here, the small differences in meaning aren't enough to derail the passage as a whole in way contrary to the author's general intent, but if general intent isn't enough and you need precision, it's best to know exactly what those commas are saying.

And join us next week for a voyage of discovery into comma use with coordinating conjunctions ... (Joking! Joking! Put down the pitchforks!)

 

[gauchecritic]

Yeah, that's what my English teacher told me in grade 10 and because of her I now have a comma fetish.

Are you sure it wasn't the Russian teacher in 9th grade that gave you a commie fetish?

 

[angelicminx]

Amen. I still have mine, although I don't often use it now. It's done most of its work. If you follow the rule of "when in doubt, look it up," you will keep returning to those rules - and eventually you will know them.

I never went to college and haven't a clue what textbook you and Remec are referring to. My cousin, however, works in a college textbook store and could most likely pick it up for me. Title?

 

[denalirayne]

Do you use a comma before a phrase starting with "which" and "where"? I tend to always use a comma before "which," but now hear it depends on the type of clause that follows.

Here are 2 examples from a children's book that I am working on:

A dream can be as deep as a pirate’s chest, which hides gold and other treasure.

Dreams can be as deep as the night sky, where stars and comets dance.

my opinion is that unless these are for a poem you should not use commas in these two examples.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Are you sure it wasn't the Russian teacher in 9th grade that gave you a commie fetish?

No, that was mine.

You're really eerily correct. My ninth grade civics teacher had apparently not heard that communism had failed pretty made everywhere, and was quite the political firebrand. She also had a picture of herself with Indira Gandhi, which she had obtained by telling people that she was a journalist for an American newspaper when in fact she was in India on holiday.