Dear Eugene,
Many thanks for another bit o' fun. I'm pleased we won't be having
pistols at dawn over a comma. :-)
All the best,
Stewart.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Vihuela vs guitar
> At 05:16 PM 9/22/2004, Stewart McCoy wrote:
> >Although it is true that an introductory passage may be separated
> >from what follows by a comma, it would be incorrect to use a
comma
> >after "passage", as you suggest for a sentence in my last e-mail,
> >since "Throughout that passage" is not an introductory passage,
but
> >an integral part of what follows. If I had written the words in a
> >different order, for example, "There is a distinct absence of
commas
> >throughout that passage", you would, I think, be less inclined to
> >precede "throughout that passage" with a comma, since those words
> >would clearly belong to the main part of the sentence. It was
> >necessary to order the words as I did, beginning my sentence with
> >"Throughout that passage", because the following subordinate
clause
> >("which are used ...") refers back to "comma", not to "passage".
In
> >other words, I don't want another comma. :-)
>
>
> However, "Throughout this passage" is a prepositional phrase that
is
> modifying the noun "commas" (which in turn is the object of a
prepositional
> phrase modifying "absence"). As such, its ordinary place would be
> following "commas." In relocating it to the front (and I agree
with your
> decision to do so), it is functioning as an introductory phrase.
As it is
> a brief introductory phrase, I think most grammarians would agree
that
> comma use is optional.
>
>
>
> >You mention Strunk and White. There are many such authorities
> >regarding the English language, and they almost invariably
disagree
> >with each other somewhere along the line. The English language
> >remains wonderfully flexible, however much grammarians try to
> >straight-jacket the way we speak and write.
>
>
> I will concede that there are almost as many grammar authorities
of the
> English language as there are people who write in English, and
many
> published sources do disagree to varying degrees. I have at least
six or
> seven texts on my shelf that, in whole or part, address the
written
> elements of style; they range from very general (e.g., the
previously cited
> Strunk & White) to very specific (e.g., Pechenik. J.A. 1997. A
short guide
> to writing about biology, 3rd ed. Longman, New York.). Strunk &
White
> certainly is my favorite for its clarity and concision. Whatever
the case,
> I think you write very well, Stewart (certainly better than I do),
so who
> cares?
>
> But let's get back to the business of plucking, eh? (Note my
atypical use
> of a conjunction to open this sentence with dramatic effect.)
>
> E
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
