Kas: The "beautiful women" example was my example. It was to simplify the original example linchpin used. The example linchpin used was an already printed piece, so it couldn't be reworded. Plus, adding the word then alters the meaning of the sentence.
Ah, I didn't read through the whole thread. I thought I was merely fixing his grammar. The original sentence was awkward.
it's still OPTIONAL, linch!... it's up to the writer whether s/he wants a pause there, or not... it's not a matter of a comma MUST or MUST NOT be there...
If the comma is not put there, linchpin, the meaning of the sentence changes. 1.) One finally called out “Descendez-moi,” which we understood to mean that she had reached an impasse, and needed to be lowered. 2.) One finally called out “Descendez-moi,” which we understood to mean that she had reached an impasse and needed to be lowered. Have two completely different meanings. Elipses is used for hesitation in speech, not commas.
Thanks all for your participations, especially WW, Maia, and Kas. I think I can make a conclusion now: Not to put a comma between the two verbs in a double-predicate sentence, and that means no mistake forever.
In all politeness and truth, if you were in my english class in high school and used a comma before the and, expect to have the teacher bite your head off. Literally, it was a pet peeve of her's, she would spend an entire class period exploding at one kid for it. So I've learned not to. The thing is, I've read a grammer book, for the english class summer assignment, in it, it pointedly states that putting a comma before the word "and" is against every rule out there and will annoy publishers to no end. So no, putting a comma before "and" is not correct from my learnings.
I read somewhere if both the actions cannot happen at the same time, or if the action follows or is the result of another action, you need a comma. Like with the above example. I yelled, and ate a sandwich. Can't really yell shutup and eat a sandwich at the same time. I mean you could, but it would come out all gurgled and you would probably be writing the sentence in a different to portray that. Is this rule correct?
that's not the reason that comma is there... it's there to separate the dialog from the narrative, not 'shut up' from 'and'... take it out and see what happens to 'yelled' and 'and'... it would not only be impossible to do both at the same time, but would also be a silly sentence that shouldn't be written in the first place...
I never asked if the sentence was a good sentence or not and I wasn't trying to prove anything. I just provided an example of what I learned which was , "You need a comma before 'and' when both actions cannot happen at the same time," and I was wondering if this was true or not? Or was the example I used was completely wrong because "ate a sandwich" is a dependant clause so you must need a comma before and? After reading this post, my head is spinning with the usage of commas before "and" now. I'm just used to writing what comes or sounds naturally. *Edit Meh ignore everything I said. Did some research. It seems like you can use a comma before "and" whenever there's a dependant clause. I don't know where I picked up that silly rule about concurrent actions with and, and commas. This thread helped: https://www.writingforums.org/showthread.php?t=21957
Hi guys, Here is another sample from Nytimes: It sees Iran as a large provider of oil, and has ignored Western calls for sanctions or withdrawing business from other resource-rich nations. This is really confusing
What is it? Put the sentence in context. It makes perfect sense, assuming the "it" has been established. . . and that the "it" makes sense. . . The sentence basically says this: It sees Iran as a large provider of oil. It has also ignored Western calls for sactions. It has ignored western calls to withdraw business from other resourse-rich nations. Though perhaps that "or" should be changed to "and". . . Is that what's confusing you? What is your question? The comma before the "and" is mostly a matter of personal preference. . . It doesn't have to be there, and there's no rule saying that it can't be there. You pretty much make your own rule in this case. . . If you feel the sentence works better with a comma, use a comma. If you think it's fine without a comma, don't use a comma. I much prefer that sentence with the comma, though. It would seem borderline run-on without one.
Hi Kas, Thanks for your reply. I can understand the meaning of it and what you said. What I am confused is like Toten said on floor #37 as: I just provided an example of what I learned which was , "You need a comma before 'and' when both actions cannot happen at the same time," and I was wondering if this was true or not? It seems that if you omit the comma you are always right, but my question is whether a comma acceptable there. I checked many grammar website; all say that you cannot put a comma there between a compound predicate, that is two verbs. I hope you can give me a final explanation. Best Regards Linchpin
You could write such a sentence with or without a comma. Both would be fine. The comma does help to separate one action from another, though. It could potentially clarify a sentence, whereas leaving the comma out might suggest to some readers that both actions happened at the same time (even though they didn't and could not have). That's pretty much what punctuation exists for--clarification. It removes ambiguity from writing. If you feel your sentence is somehow less clear or more prone to misinterpretation without the comma, then by all means, use a comma. If you think a reader might be confused by your leaving a comma out, then use a comma. The comma is never wrong, so long as you use it in a way that makes sense and you have a good reason for doing so. There's no right or wrong here, as I understand it.
Nope. She poured her coffee into a paper cup and closed the lid. << happens in sequential order. Matter of fact, you're not supposed to use a comma in this example. This sentence doesn't work as is. The first part is fine, using "and" to compound the subject. "It sees Iran as a large provider of oil and has ignored Western calls for sanctions." I think to make this sentence work, you need to repeat parts of the predicate. When doing so, you might want to use commas because the sentence is so long. It sees Iran as a large provider of oil and has ignored Western calls for sanctions, and has ignored their calls to withdraw business from other resource-rich nations. I think subordination will make it even clearer. The UN, who sees Iran as a large provider of oil, has ignored Western calls for sanctions and ignored their calls to withdraw business from other resource-rich nations. You need to use "to withdraw" and not "from withdrawing", since you wrote "for sanctions." I hope this helps.
Right. A comma would be pointless there. A more elaborate sentence might call for one, but I'm too tired to think of one now. The only point I was trying to make is, if there's a genuine risk of miscommunication, then commas can potentially help where they are not normally needed. . . But the sentence above is so simple that you couldn't possibly misunderstand it, and a comma would stick out like a sore thumb.
Kas, yes I know you undertand it. I usually always add a comma in if there are many words between the conjunction because I am not good at pretending to be the reader. I know it makes sense to me without the comma, but it might confuse a reader. I can read a sentence slowly five times and still miss that "atheist" should have been "atheists." One of these days I will train my brain to distance itself from my writing so I can play editor.
