all contributors to this thread within a thread will
be placed in competition for a green visor, a pair of
sleeve garters and the prestigious, h.l. menken cigar
butt (bronze) award.
- ed.
--- "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
