comma abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guy Worthington
  • Start date Start date
G

Guy Worthington

"When users run spell check on their document, it isn't
detecting a single letter as misspelled."

The comma in the above sentence is about as useful as a foreskin
at a jewish wedding - indeed it makes the reading experience
of the whole sentence unpleasant. Yet I was dismayed to
find that this comma passes Word 97's grammar check. What use
is a grammar check that doesn't check for commas and especially
worthless commas that make you look just plain stupid?
 
I guess it must be a matter of opinion, Guy, because I would find that
sentence unpleasant to read WITHOUT the comma.

Regards,
Chad DeMeyer
 
The comma in that sentence is required by correct grammar (subordinate
clause at the beginning of a sentence).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.
 
Dismay seems a bizarre reaction. That sentence would seem illiterate to me
if the comma were missing.
 
Suzanne said:
Guy Worthington wrote:
Click to expand...
The comma in that sentence is required by correct grammar
(subordinate clause at the beginning of a sentence).
Click to expand...

If the sentence read "When users run spell check on their document,
[they aren't] detecting a single letter as misspelled.", then I
agree that the comma is required because it's a subordinate clause
at the beginning of sentence. But it doesn't: The subject of the
original sentence is the spell check and not the users.
 
Chad DeMeyer said:
I guess it must be a matter of opinion, Guy, because I would find that
sentence unpleasant to read WITHOUT the comma.
Click to expand...

Inasmuch as three competent writers validate the comma I will defer
to Word 97's grammar check.
 
Guy Worthington said:
Suzanne said:
Guy Worthington wrote:
Click to expand...
The comma in that sentence is required by correct grammar
(subordinate clause at the beginning of a sentence).
Click to expand...

If the sentence read "When users run spell check on their document,
[they aren't] detecting a single letter as misspelled.", then I
agree that the comma is required because it's a subordinate clause
at the beginning of sentence. But it doesn't: The subject of the
original sentence is the spell check and not the users.
Click to expand...


Subordinate clause none the less. "When users run spell check on their
document" cannot stand alone.

But for what it's worth, you're quite right to be wary of Word's grammar
checker: it's necessarily using fairly fuzzy heuristics to guess what's
going on with your sentence. And as every style guide points out, grammar
rules are guidelines only, not laws. Grammatic pedantry is something up with
which one should not put.
 
Inasmuch as three competent writers validate the comma I will defer
to Word 97's grammar check.
Click to expand...

Inasmuch as three competent writers validate the comma, I will defer
^
sigh
to Word 97's grammar check.
 
What the subject of the sentence is has no bearing on whether or not it is a
subordinate clause. The fact that it begins with a subordinating conjunction
("when") determines this. I think you need to go back to English 101!

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

Guy Worthington said:
Suzanne said:
Guy Worthington wrote:
Click to expand...
The comma in that sentence is required by correct grammar
(subordinate clause at the beginning of a sentence).
Click to expand...

If the sentence read "When users run spell check on their document,
[they aren't] detecting a single letter as misspelled.", then I
agree that the comma is required because it's a subordinate clause
at the beginning of sentence. But it doesn't: The subject of the
original sentence is the spell check and not the users.
Click to expand...
 
Suzanne said:
What the subject of the sentence is has no bearing on whether or not it is a
subordinate clause. The fact that it begins with a subordinating conjunction
("when") determines this. I think you need to go back to English 101!
Click to expand...

I remember English 101:

A cat[1] has claws at the end of its paws.
A comma's a pause at the end of clause.

Getting back to the original sentence it's still true that
"When users run spell check on their document, it isn't
detecting a single letter as misspelled.", is unpleasant to read.
It's also true that if the sentence was a composition, then our
comma would correspond to the infamous brown note from South Park.

And I'm still dismayed that the sentence passes Word's grammar check.

[1] Suzanne Barnhill also has claws at the end of her paws.
 
The original sentence is certainly ugly, but it's downright hideous without
the comma. Perhaps you should look up 'dismay' in a dictionary.



Guy Worthington said:
Suzanne said:
What the subject of the sentence is has no bearing on whether or not it is a
subordinate clause. The fact that it begins with a subordinating conjunction
("when") determines this. I think you need to go back to English 101!
Click to expand...

I remember English 101:

A cat[1] has claws at the end of its paws.
A comma's a pause at the end of clause.

Getting back to the original sentence it's still true that
"When users run spell check on their document, it isn't
detecting a single letter as misspelled.", is unpleasant to read.
It's also true that if the sentence was a composition, then our
comma would correspond to the infamous brown note from South Park.

And I'm still dismayed that the sentence passes Word's grammar check.

[1] Suzanne Barnhill also has claws at the end of her paws.
Click to expand...
 
This is quite a silly problem as different people prefer
different prescriptive or descriptive approaches to
grammar and one can only expect word to attempt to
satisfy everyone's preferences by making traditonal
grammar default and giving the option of an ignore
button. Possibly the ignore button on this debate should
be pressed!
 
This is quite a silly problem as different people prefer
different prescriptive or descriptive approaches to
grammar and one can only expect word to attempt to
satisfy everyone's preferences by making traditonal
grammar default and giving the option of an ignore
button.
Click to expand...

Now there's an ugly sentence!
 
Oh dear! Please take my advice, you're sounding like
Lynne Truss; this is a computer helproom not somewhere to
battle out punctuation problems! If it was, I would have
commented that 'when' used at the start of a sentence is
not a conjunction, as Suzanne said, but a preposition
indicating circumstance of time.
I don't always try to make my sentences 'pretty'; I tend
to try and make them fit their purpose. Is this possibly
Microsoft's way of thinking?
P.S. Jezebel, your sentences aren't that great either!
 
my extended reply seems to be on page 1...oops!
-----Original Message-----
Oh dear! Please take my advice, you're sounding like
Lynne Truss; this is a computer helproom not somewhere to
battle out punctuation problems! If it was, I would have
commented that 'when' used at the start of a sentence is
not a conjunction, as Suzanne said, but a preposition
indicating circumstance of time.
I don't always try to make my sentences 'pretty'; I tend
to try and make them fit their purpose. Is this possibly
Microsoft's way of thinking?
P.S. Jezebel, your sentences aren't that great either!
.
Click to expand...
 
Jezebel said:
Now there's an ugly sentence!
Click to expand...

And what's wrong with the sentence; the words soar and wheel
and glide unfettered by punctuation.

As for the second sentence

which starts of so diffidently and ends with an exclamation -
as Monty Burns puts it "Fiesty, yet spineless." - that could
do with a rewrite.
 
Guy Worthington wrote:

If you were bemused by the incoherent babble of my last
message it was because it was corrupted on the journey from
my computer to your computer. Luckily I saved a copy: and
here it is with fixed spelling - oh, and I also lopped off
that useless appendage which was just dangling in mid-air.
As for the second sentence


it starts off so diffidently and ends with an exclamation -
as Monty Burns puts it "Fiesty, yet spineless."
Click to expand...

I can't tell a lie, it wasn't transmission errors. But please
don't be too harsh in passing judgement for I'm easily led.
For you see it was suggested to me that I should forget about the
comma and get a life. Well I thought it might be nice to try the
life of a cat.

But dear reader, it's not easy writing like a cat. Rubbish
you'll say and point to the rest of the posters in this thread
who have no trouble donning their feline personae. But I tell
you these posters are professionals. So please, heed my sad
tale or you too may face the ignominy of a useless appendage
dangling in mid-air.
 
Back
Top