TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Commas, take II From:"Geoff Hart (by way of \"Eric J. Ray\" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)" <ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:09:48 -0700
Leonard Porrello questioned my statement on commas: <<All of the
grammar texts that I have ever seen state the comma is necessary--as
a rule except when the two clauses are very simple--to separate two
independent clauses joined by a conjunction, so I wonder why you say
that using the comma is just a mater of style.>>
Strictly speaking, this matter is a bit more complicated than either
of us suggested in our messages. Here's a quick survey: For short
clauses, comma (generally) unnecessary. For compound predicates,
comma unnecessary. For restrictive clauses, comma unnecessary; for
nonrestrictive clauses, comma necessary. References: Chicago Manual
of Style, Strunk and White (for which I'm working from memory), and
probably most others if you dig a bit.
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"By God, for a moment there it all made sense!"--Gahan Wilson
