Larry and the fanboys

Question

In the Penguin guide to punctuation Larry Trasks claims that a joining comma must be followed by and, or, but, yet or while.

However, I was under the impression that a joining comma should be followed by one of the FANBOYS (for, and, not, but, or, yet and so).

Why the discrepancy?

You have to be a Larry Trask fanboi to know his system & explain it all. It's all available on the web. I've looked at it, & as impressive as his work is, it's just another way of looking at the same old stuff we've had to deal with in English grammar classes for the past two hundred years. I found his comma types contradictory at worst & a bit unclear at best. I'd suggest ignoring the terminology for the simple reason that a comma is a comma is a comma. Why is the comma there? That explains its function in the sentence. Is it necessary? You'll find no "joiner" tattoo on any comma. — , Feb 28 '13 at 01:39
@tchrist A joining comma is used to join two complete clauses. It is followed by a coordinating conjunction. For example: I am going away, and I may not come back. — The Frog, Mar 01 '13 at 00:50
@Bill Franke "I found his comma types contradictory at worst." In what way? — The Frog, Mar 01 '13 at 00:52
@TheFrog: The so-called "joining comma". But I guess when one attempts to clean out the Augean stables, one will always miss a few horse apples. That "joining comma" in your example is strictly optional in 21st-century English. The conjunction joins the two sentences. Therefore, it's a useless comma. See what I mean? — , Mar 01 '13 at 01:08
@tchrist Good & innocent q. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:xCp16M_pBsQJ:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english/Punctuation_answers%2Bdefine+%22joining+comma%22&gbv=2&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...376240.380902.0.381117.22.22.0.0.0.0.303.2534.10j10j1j1.22.0...0.0...1c.1.GHbfdhKMgOU&ct=clnk — Kris, Mar 01 '13 at 08:51
@tchrist And, http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node11.html#SECTION00042000000000000000 — Kris, Mar 01 '13 at 08:52
@Bill Franke: Trask, himself, indicates this comma may be removed, in particular if the first clause is short. However, it is useful to distinguish between different usages of and. A sentence starting with Jane liked Peter and Paul... (OK, this is a simplistic example) requires that you read further to understand whether Paul is a complement of the first clause or the subject of a new clause. Often in English you have to reread from the start of the sentence because you did not make the correct structural assumption at the start. That is a reason why this kind of punctuation is useful IMO. — The Frog, Mar 01 '13 at 22:25
@TheFrog: I love commas for just the reason you mention. Many claim that I overuse them. I love grammar. And I love having cognitive boxes to stick stuff like commas into. My criteria for labeling, however, are slightly different from Trask's in some cases. I prefer to identify by analyzing function & whether it works: show me, then I'll tell you what you are, case by case. For me, commas always separate, even when they're wedges for inserts. A conjunction joins, but a comma's not a conjunction. But that's an overgeneralization. His work is impressive, but joining comma's not useful to me. — , Mar 01 '13 at 23:04

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Mar 02 '13 at 20:54

The discrepancy comes from nothing more than the incompleteness of each set of words. Notice that the two sets of words overlap a good deal, and that neither one excludes the other, nor do they exclude any other possibilities.

And let's not forget that a fundamental use of the comma is to indicate a pause, especially when the pause would be utilized if the words were spoken. (Which means that The Frog's example of a joining comma is not necessarily useless, but yes, it's optional.)

Larry and the fanboys

1 Answers1