| Author |
Message |
Masa
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:14 pm
Post subject: omitted comma |
|
|
I often come across sentences in which a comma is not found where it
should be.
Here is an example setence which I used here a few days ago for a
different question.
You know, something like an autoloading Remington, three-inch magnum
double-aught buck.
Be like hitting the fool with fifteen thirty-two caliber bullets -
three times that
you hit him with all three rounds. We're talking forty-five friggin'
pieces of lead.
(P.Cornwell)
three times that you hit him with all three rounds
I think that this one could be modified as follows: three times that,
you hit him
with all three rounds.
And here is another one.
Not to mention what could happen to the cases come court time.
(Body of Evidence,p191, P.Cornwell)
This could be changed as follows:
Not to mention what could happen to the cases, come court time.
Absence of commas leave us non-natives excessively confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:39 am
Post subject: Re: omitted comma |
|
|
"Masa" <autosu@infoseek.jp> wrote in message
news:1115914488.002653.216330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I often come across sentences in which a comma is not found where it
should be.
Here is an example setence which I used here a few days ago for a
different question.
You know, something like an autoloading Remington, three-inch magnum
double-aught buck.
Be like hitting the fool with fifteen thirty-two caliber bullets -
three times that
you hit him with all three rounds. We're talking forty-five friggin'
pieces of lead.
(P.Cornwell)
three times that you hit him with all three rounds
I think that this one could be modified as follows: three times that,
you hit him
with all three rounds.
And here is another one.
Not to mention what could happen to the cases come court time.
(Body of Evidence,p191, P.Cornwell)
This could be changed as follows:
Not to mention what could happen to the cases, come court time.
Absence of commas leave us non-natives excessively confused.
|
I wouldn't put a comma in either case you mention, and I can't even guess
what reasoning would lead you to propose putting the comma in "three times
that, you hit him with all three rounds."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 3:09 am
Post subject: Re: omitted comma |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "Masa" <autosu@infoseek.jp> wrote in message
news:1115914488.002653.216330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I often come across sentences in which a comma is not found where
it
should be.
Here is an example setence which I used here a few days ago for a
different question.
You know, something like an autoloading Remington, three-inch
magnum
double-aught buck.
Be like hitting the fool with fifteen thirty-two caliber bullets -
three times that
you hit him with all three rounds. We're talking forty-five
friggin'
pieces of lead.
(P.Cornwell)
three times that you hit him with all three rounds
I think that this one could be modified as follows: three times
that,
you hit him
with all three rounds.
And here is another one.
Not to mention what could happen to the cases come court time.
(Body of Evidence,p191, P.Cornwell)
This could be changed as follows:
Not to mention what could happen to the cases, come court
time.
Absence of commas leave us non-natives excessively confused.
I wouldn't put a comma in either case you mention, and I can't even
guess
what reasoning would lead you to propose putting the comma in "three
times
that, you hit him with all three rounds."
|
I think a comma would make it clearer, since it would stand in for the
missing word 'if'.
I think a comma would be at least optional before 'come court time'.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 3:59 am
Post subject: Re: omitted comma |
|
|
Masa quotes a Patricia Cornwell character:
| Quote: | Be like hitting the fool with fifteen thirty-two caliber bullets -
three times that you hit him with all three rounds.
|
Raymond Wise writes:
| Quote: | I can't even guess what reasoning would lead you to propose putting
the comma in "three times that, you hit him with all three rounds."
|
This surprises me. I can't imagine the sentence being considered
correct as it stands, and inserting a comma is the simplest fix.
John O'Flaherty:
| Quote: | I think a comma would make it clearer, since it would stand in for the
missing word 'if'.
|
That's one reading, anyway. The words "you hit him with all three
rounds" definitely serve an explanatory function and need to be set
off somehow, but the there are possible wordings where there really
isn't an omitted conjunction. Some other choices are:
... bullets. Three times that (you hit him... rounds.
... bullets. Three times that: you hit him... rounds.
... bullets -- three times that (you hit him... rounds).
... bullets -- three times that, since you hit him... rounds.
... bullets -- three times that, if you hit him... rounds.
... bullets -- three times that if you hit him... rounds.
... bullets, three times that if you hit him... rounds.
These are not all equally good. The versions with a colon or
parentheses are rather fussy and don't fit well with the sort
of speaking style that the character has, though they might be
good with a similar sentence used by someone who speaks more
formally.
More important, I think the context seems to already be assuming
that we're talking hypothetically about hitting the victim three
times. If so, then that makes the last two versions wrong -- the
sense now makes the if-clause non-restrictive, so it requires a
comma to set it off. So the comma is not, as John suggests,
"standing for the missing word 'if'".
--
Mark Brader I "need to know" *everything*! How else
Toronto can I judge whether I need to know it?
msb@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 7:11 am
Post subject: Re: omitted comma |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | Masa quotes a Patricia Cornwell character:
Be like hitting the fool with fifteen thirty-two caliber
bullets -
three times that you hit him with all three rounds.
Raymond Wise writes:
I can't even guess what reasoning would lead you to propose
putting
the comma in "three times that, you hit him with all three
rounds."
This surprises me. I can't imagine the sentence being considered
correct as it stands, and inserting a comma is the simplest fix.
John O'Flaherty:
I think a comma would make it clearer, since it would stand in for
the
missing word 'if'.
That's one reading, anyway. The words "you hit him with all three
rounds" definitely serve an explanatory function and need to be set
off somehow, but the there are possible wordings where there really
isn't an omitted conjunction. Some other choices are:
... bullets. Three times that (you hit him... rounds.
... bullets. Three times that: you hit him... rounds.
... bullets -- three times that (you hit him... rounds).
... bullets -- three times that, since you hit him... rounds.
... bullets -- three times that, if you hit him... rounds.
... bullets -- three times that if you hit him... rounds.
... bullets, three times that if you hit him... rounds.
These are not all equally good. The versions with a colon or
parentheses are rather fussy and don't fit well with the sort
of speaking style that the character has, though they might be
good with a similar sentence used by someone who speaks more
formally.
More important, I think the context seems to already be assuming
that we're talking hypothetically about hitting the victim three
times. If so, then that makes the last two versions wrong -- the
sense now makes the if-clause non-restrictive, so it requires a
comma to set it off.
|
The context doesn't assume that you're hitting the victim three times;
that is a condition specified by the clause '[if] you hit him with all
three rounds'. It really seems restrictive to me, since 'three times
that' applies if and only if you use all three rounds. I think the
comma is needed for some other reason than whether it's restrictive or
not. Maybe it's because "Three times that" is elliptical and doesn't
really make an independent clause.
| Quote: | So the comma is not, as John suggests,
"standing for the missing word 'if'".
|
I guess not, since it would be there if the word 'if' were there too,
but I think it's called for even more if the 'if' is omitted.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 3:14 pm
Post subject: Re: omitted comma |
|
|
Masa quotes a Patricia Cornwell character:
| Quote: | Be like hitting the fool with fifteen thirty-two caliber
bullets - three times that you hit him with all three rounds.
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | ... I think the context seems to already be assuming that we're
talking hypothetically about hitting the victim three times.
|
John O'Flaherty:
| Quote: | The context doesn't assume that you're hitting the victim three times;
that is a condition specified by the clause '[if] you hit him with all
three rounds'. It really seems restrictive to me...
|
I think the whole conversation must be about someone firing three
shots into the victim, which leads to my interpretation. Otherwise
how'd the number three come into it? I haven't read the book; I'm
just guessing at why the character would be saying that.
--
Mark Brader | "And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
Toronto | hundreds of points of view. It was not called the
msb@vex.net | Net of a Million Lies for nothing." --Vernor Vinge
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in