The Toolbox

[ctg]

Crystal Haven, it's about something the question that comes every so often. Not everyone has been able to read everything that's in this forum, so you're not expected to know these things. Kate's list is very good, and without me having to write that list on my own (all the time), I decided to just copy and paste it here.

[Peter Graham]

But presumably the sense of the sentence could be resurrected if a futher comma were to be inserted?

"Peter depowered the shield, adjusted his cravat, so that it was at a suitably rakish angle, and flipped the hyperdrive switch."

Or do you feel this still falls foul of sub-clause laws as it requires removing two sections?

I think the problem here is that the second comma is redundant - the rakish angle relates to the cravat, so any comma which breaks up that little piece is in the wrong place. So it isn't two subclauses at all in that case.

I see no grammatical reason why you couldn't have subclauses within subclauses (others may know of one):-

"Peter depowered the shield, adjusted his cravat, which he had bought in Jermyn Street last time Mrs Graham had been unwise enough to allow him to go to London unsupervised, so that it was at a suitably rakish angle, and flipped the hyperdrive switch."

The problem here is that the sentence ends up being cumbersome - perhaps not incorrect, but not easy to read. Using brackets or dashes instead of commas for that second subclause would make it look easier on the eye.

I think perhaps the reason people may fall into this trap (and I wouldn't pretend to be immune from it**) is from a belief that it is not necessary -- or is even wrong -- to put a comma before an 'and', the so-called Oxford comma.

I think you are right. When I was at school, using the Oxford comma was a transgression akin to looking bored during prayers or having a dump on the Headmaster's desk. We were told that the comma and the "and" were two tools which did the same job. We were also told that the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't marry swineherds, so make of it what you will. But if my worthy pedagogues were right (about Oxford commas rather than the porcine preoccupations and prohibitions of our Germanic forebears), then in my original example the subclause could just as easily be wrapped by a comma at one end and an "and" (doing the same job as a comma) at the other. I used the Oxford comma for clarity, but it works without.

Regards,

Peter

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

I think the problem here is that the second comma is redundant - the rakish angle relates to the cravat, so any comma which breaks up that little piece is in the wrong place. So it isn't two subclauses at all in that case.

Redundant, I know, but, oddly enough, when I read the sentence to myself, I do pause slightly there, and read the second part of the sub-clause in a (slightly) different mental voice. There is, perhaps, something to be said, after all, for not putting commas here, there, and everywhere, simply because of the way one might pause in reading.

Not to self: there is such a thing as over-punctuation...

J

PS I'm now intrigued about the marriage prospects of Anglo-Saxon swineherds. Are we talking legal prohibitions or cultural prejudice?

[Ursa major]

It sounds as if some of us may need a half-comma (or a semi-comma).

[HareBrain]

I've sometimes thought so. And if hemi-demi-semi-quavers, why not hemi-demi-semi-commas?

[Peter Graham]

PS I'm now intrigued about the marriage prospects of Anglo-Saxon swineherds. Are we talking legal prohibitions or cultural prejudice?

I've no idea, alas. I've never been able to find any reference to it since (not that I've looked that hard), but on the grounds that the Anglo-Saxon economy was predominantly one of subsistence farming with a bit of casual violence and heavy drinking thrown in for good measure (rather like British society today, if you substitute the subsistence farming for an obsession with anorexic crooning pixies with poignant life stories), I'd assume that most families would have had a pig or two in any event.

Perhaps this is the germ of a story - a trilogy (obviously) about star crossed Dark Age lovers. On the one hand, Eadflead the Scrofulous, a Mercian swineherd. On the other, Gwenhwfar, princess of the British Royal House of Powys. The Celts can obviously be the good guys and the Saxons can be the evil guys. All we need now is a prophesy, a quest, a bit of Cornwell-esque gritty dialogue to show a veneer of historical realism and we've got a hit on our hands!

Or perhaps I should just prepare a treatise on the semi-colon....

Regards,

Peter

[Leisha]

Wow, this is a fantastic thread, Peter! Not sure if my contribution will be appreciated (and, whoa, my online persona has mellowed a lot in two years ), but, can I humbly add an old thread of mine?

Some tips to help new writers with grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc...


And nope, I'm not trying to get published anymore; I realised that there was so much more I could do to my novel, and some other characters butted their way in from book two, so it's (still) undergoing a makeover. Maybe one day I'll feel it's ready...

Anyway, I hope the post helps someone!

[Boneman]

Hi Leisha. It certainly helped me with the dreaded comma usage, thanks very much.

I was just about to post a thread on that very subject as I'm always confused about the use of a comma after the word 'and'... I'd spent a long time agonising over whether they should not exist, even.

As in: "I'm going out now and I won't be back."
"I'm going out now, and I won't be back."

Many thanks for pointing this thread out.

[Leisha]

Thanks! As for the comma, usually people leave off the comma if the clauses are closely related. For example:

I walked to the park and [I] bought an ice cream.
Bill was a pony and [he] liked carrots.
I'm writing this and I'm not using a pen and paper.

Sentences that aren't too closely related need the extra comma. Example:

I walked to the park and bought an ice cream, and I went swimming afterwards. (You could even substitute the "and" for a "then" or "and then".)
Bill was a pony, and his owner made him pull heavy carts.
I'm writing this, and I might copy it on to paper.

Of course, some of it is down to personal preference...

The other point worth mentioning is when you need a comma for clarification. Compare these two sentences:

I ate my Easter egg and my gran did too.
I ate my Easter egg, and my gran did too.

Some people may argue that, upon first read through, the reader will know that the person didn't eat his gran, but I'd use the comma anyway, for clarification.
Hope that helps.

[Chinook]

I have a question. If an action is repeated several times by the narrator or the third person omniscient character, is it better to keep using the word and with commas, or is it okay to start a new sentence with the word "And"? Or, perhaps there's a better way to deal with this situation altogether. If so, please do tell.

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Part the Second,

and part it again. And then once more, and yet another. The parting continued forever until the smallest unit of time was discovered. So, it was aptly named, "Peter's constant."

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Chinook

I have a question. If an action is repeated several times by the narrator or the third person omniscient character, is it better to keep using the word and with commas, or is it okay to start a new sentence with the word "And"? Or, perhaps there's a better way to deal with this situation altogether. If so, please do tell.

It used to be a rule that one never started a sentence with a prepostion, ie 'and' or 'but'. But (ha!) I have to confess to flouting that one on a regular basis, and not simply in dialogue, and I have yet to be struck by thunderbolts. It might still be an idea to watch this kind of thing carefully, but much will depend on the overall tone of your writing, of course.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about repeating an action though. Do you mean literally the same action as in 'He thumped the punch-bag, and thumped it again, and again, and again'? Or were you thinking of a kind of list of actions as in 'He thumped the punch-bag, kicked the medicine ball from his path, struck out at the post, and left the gym'? Whether repeatedly to use 'and' or simply commas, or even to start a new sentence, will I think depend on the rhythm of the sentence(s) and the feel of the piece.

If I've got the wrong end of the stick (very possibly), just say. It might be an idea to let us have an example of what you mean, anyway, so that we can offer alternatives, if any there be.

J

[Chinook]

Originally Posted by The Judge

I'm not quite sure what you mean about repeating an action though. Do you mean literally the same action as in 'He thumped the punch-bag, and thumped it again, and again, and again'?

J

^

This is the one I meant; as in my example above, I played with Peter's statement a bit, and took the meaning of "part" to be divide. "Part the second" - divide the second (unit of time) and then divide it again ad infinitum, and you must surely discover the smallest unit of time, and so it should be called Peter's constant (In like with Planck's constant)

The following is a quote about Planck's constant:

Planck hypothesized (correctly, as it later turned out) that under certain conditions, energy could not take on any indiscriminate value: instead, the energy must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named a "quantum"). This is counterintuitive in the everyday world, where it is possible to "make things a little bit hotter" or "move things a little bit faster", because the quanta of energy are very, very small in comparison to everyday human experience. Nevertheless, it is impossible, as Planck found out, to explain some phenomena without accepting that energy is discrete; that is, it exists only in integer multiples of some base value.

This is the basis of quantum physics.

Anyway, I would think there's a limit to saying "He did it again, and again, and, again. And, I was just wondering how to get around the repetition of an action in written prose.

[The Judge]

I think you're right, Chinook -- there is a limit to how often one can say 'and again', and for me it would be the three times I used it in my example. Even if your character kept hitting away, I think it would be counter-productive to keep saying it. I don't think changing the wording would help a great deal either eg 'He thumped the punch-bag, and hit it again, belted it once more, and then struck it a fourth time'. It feels repetitive but without the anvil-like effect of 'and again'. This is doubtless one of those occasions when less is more.

Eek, physics lessons disguising themselves as grammar queries... *The Judge faints*

J

[Peter Graham]

This is the one I meant; as in my example above, I played with Peter's statement a bit, and took the meaning of "part" to be divide. "Part the second" - divide the second (unit of time) and then divide it again ad infinitum, and you must surely discover the smallest unit of time, and so it should be called Peter's constant (In like with Planck's constant)

Much as I would like to be famed by having a constant named after me, "Part the Second" is just an archaic way of saying "the second part".

Quantum physics makes my head spin. Is that the stuff which says that everything can appear in lots of places at once whilst at the same time being nowhere?

But as far as your example is concerned, there are no rules. Do whatever you need to do to keep it interesting:-

"Judge got up and drank a large glass of wine. Then she drank another one. Then she drank another one. Then she drank another one. Then she went to Court, vomited all over her clerk and accidentally re-introduced the death penalty. Luckily, the barristers were so busy seeing who could laugh the most sycophantically at her drunken judicial witticisms that none of them noticed."

You could try:-

"Judge got up and drank a large glass of wine. Then she savoured another one before throwing caution to the wind and pouring the contents of a third down her grateful gullet. After swallowing a final one for the road, she went to Court...."

If the point of the piece is to draw attention to the fact of the drinking (or to draw humour from it), then the above technique might be OK, although you would need to take time to ensure that it looked less list-like (crikey - alliteration before 9.30...). But if the point of the piece is to draw attantion to the unilateral introduction of the death penalty, you might be better not diverting attention to other matters, in which case it works better as:-

"Judge got up and drank four large glasses of wine. Then she went to Court......"

Regards,

Constant Peter

[The Judge]

The cheek of it... My judicial witticisms are never drunken.