I have a grammar question concerning the comma.

I’ve been going over my work, double checking the punctuation, and I came across these two books that don’t seem to agree. Some of you English majors out there tell me what’s wrong. Why do these books not agree?

In my book, The Penguin Guide to Punctuation, it says one joins to complete sentences with a comma and the joining words: and, or, but, yet, while.

In my book, Grammar and Style Book by Susan Thurman, it says one joins to complete sentences with a comma and the joining words: but, or, yet, so, for, and, not.

Perhaps one is USA grammar rules and one is British grammar.

Thanks
Azel

<Added>

Correction: 'joins two complete sentences'

Also 'which':

Look up 'Oxford comma', which is also used in joined up sentences (as I have done just now).

why not just say it joins two complete sentences when combined with a conjunction, instead of listing all the ones they can think of? (or have them in brackets as examples)

you could also have "although", or "alternatively" ("alternatively" isn't a conjunction, but can be used as one in the same way as yet - I reckon!)

Colin M
(going back to Cow Maze)

I agree with Colin - the two books are just giving different examples.

Deb

Many would disagree with the idea of putting a comma before 'and' in most circumstances . I recall being taught specifically not to use the comma in this way (although this did not necessarily apply to other conjunctions). Personally, I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule. As there was a copy next to me, I opened David Copperfield at random to see how Dickens dealt with this. The first three paras of Ch 5 contain these examples.

We might have gone about half a mile, and my pocket-handkerchief was quite wet through, when the carrier stopped short.

I picked up one of several that were rolling about, and treasured it as a keepsake for a long time.

I shook my head and said I thought not.

In the first each verb has a different subject so, somehow, a comma seems to be required for separation purposes.

Both second and third examples have no change of subject and the subject is not repeated yet one has a comma and the other hasn't.

I think this illustrates the rule I would follow that, if, when reading it aloud, a pause would be indicated, there should be a comma. If not, just leave the conjunction to do its joining up by itself.

Others will disagree...

Chris

I'd agree with you, Chris. It's very much in the ear, and it depends on the length and sense of the two halves of sentence that you're joining.

There's also the kind which goes:

"I walked quickly and purposefully down the street, then just as I reached the chip-shop I saw a friend."

US punctuation particularly, really, really wants to make this:

"I walked quickly and purposefully down the street then, just as I reached the chip shop, I saw a friend."

Undoubtedly it's more traditionally correct, but in the voice of a novel I think it reads rather pompously.

Emma

I have always had a poor understanding of grammar. This last summer I spent about three months studying grammar from seven different books on the subject. Most of them were suggested on this forum.

Punctuation if my biggest problem.

My books do not seem to agree on the list of coordinating conjunctions.

The British grammar authors list them as: (and, or, but, nor, while)

The U.S.A grammar authors list them as: (and, or, but, not, for, yet, so)

I realize that ‘not’ and ‘nor’ are different words meaning nearly the same thing. The word ‘while’ is a subordinate conjunction in my USA grammar books, but in the British grammar book, it’s listed as a coordination conjunction. And, ‘for’, ‘yet’, and ‘so’, are not listed as coordinating conjunctions at all in the British authors grammar books.

It’s bad enough just trying to learn punctuation without having the books disagree. I spend more time revising the grammar than I do revising the story.

Azel

I suspect Americans tend to use more commas than we Brits do, but no doubt that's an over-generalisation.

Sometimes I put a comma before a conjunction and sometimes I don't. It depends on the length of the sentence, the meaning I'm trying to get across, and what's happening to the rhythm of the words. There's no hard and fast rule as far as I'm aware. Adding a comma before a conjunction adds a slight pause: sometimes it's needed and sometimes it isn't.

<Added>

Isn't an Oxford comma the one added before 'and' in a list? I don't think it's got anything to do with conjunctions.

In a ‘list’ the Brits do not add a comma before ‘and’, but the Americans do. The comma takes the place of the ‘and’ conjunction, so when one places a ‘and’ conjunction between the last two words, it is considered redundant to also place a comma before ‘and’. At least, that is the way the Brits see it, which makes more sense than the American way.

Brit Example: I went to a dress store, a shoe store and a wine store.
American Example: I went to a dress store, a shoe store, and a wine store.

Azel

Actually, that's not quite true.

In a simple list the British way is not to use a comma before 'and':
I bought a pear, an apple and a banana.

However, the Oxford comma (as used by the typesetters at Oxford University Press) is a comma put before the 'and' in a list. So with an Oxford comma it is:
I bought a pear, an apple, and a banana.

But then we Brits would add a comma before 'and' in a list if it's needed to create sense, as in:
The colour choices were green, black and white, and red.

You're mixing rules for different functions. There are four functions of a comma, and despite what you get taught in school, a pause is not one of them.

The listing comma. This separates items in a list:

I went to the shop and bought a hat, a coat, a gun and an umbrella.

There is no comma following the conjunction because it completes the list.

A joining comma joins two sentences if used with a conjunction. If used without, then you need a semi colon., ie

I like haggis, and I like the way it's made. vs I like haggis; I like the way it's made.

Both correct, but "I like haggis and I like the way it's made" is wrong because it gives the impression that the "and" is introducing something else you like, not another sentence.

Third is the bracket comma, where the comma separates extra meaning from the main sentence.

I bought a hat, a big yellow one, from a shop on the corner.

And mix it with a joining comma for fun

I bought a hat, a big, wide, yellow, straw hat, from the shop on the corner.

and add the joining comma too.

I bought a hat, a big, wide, yellow, straw hat, from the shop on the corner, but I didn't put it on until I got home.

The fourth use is when a comma replaces stuff you've already said (got to be a better term for it!), and I think this is where the old rule of "a pause" comes in, because the pause in speech indicates the stuff you've already said. It is also the only example when it really is up to the style of the writer. If the sentence is clear without them, then you don't need 'em. Personally, I hate them because they can make a perfectly legible sentence look unecessarily cluttered.

Some of the cows in the fair field are brown; the others, are white. All of the girls in our class are good readers; the boys, aren't so good. John is the biggest boy in our class and Fred, the smallest.

in the first two examples, I wouldn't bother with the comma, in the third I would. I suppose a copy editor would do his nut if I mixed styles like this, but there you go

Colin M

Colin, that's fantastically clear, thank you.

Because I read all my work aloud I think when copy-editors and I disagree (which if they're American is often) it's usually because I've put a comma where I would lift (hardly even a pause) when I'm reading aloud. But as you say, written comma rules aren't about how you'd say it, they're about the sense.

Emma

You can go round in circles with it though, and some are easy to miss, or can be argued over. That second sentence, for example, should really have been:

There are four functions of a comma, and, despite what you get taught in school, a pause is not one of them.

but to me, that looks clumsy, and the meaning is clearer in the first version. I we have a certain degree of artistic licence in creative writing, but I'd imagine in technical writing, those guidelines are enforced as rules.

Yes, I resist the notion that punctuation for fiction must follow the same rules as for prose whose sole function is to convey meaning clearly. It is important to know the rules, because we need to punctuate in a way that makes readers read our work as we want them to. But as creative writers we reserve the right to have made-up words, incomplete sentences, non-standard grammar, and so on, so non-standard punctuation is fine by me.

Emma