0

I knew he was going to be there, and sure enough, he was there.

In this sentence, can I place comma before "sure enough" like this:

I knew he was going to be there, and, sure enough, he was there.

And if I can, what's the difference between these two sentences?

sooeithdk
  • 513
  • Orthography is not part of language, and not even of its written transposition, so that you could even write 'I, knew, he, was, going, to, be, there, and, sure, enough, he, was, there,' without changing in meaning. That's all. – Elberich Schneider Jul 31 '15 at 21:28
  • So both of them do not have any differece? – sooeithdk Jul 31 '15 at 21:34
  • Because the impression seems to be slightly different. – sooeithdk Jul 31 '15 at 21:56
  • 1
    @sooeithdk In what way do you perceive the impression to be different? – Tarius Jul 31 '15 at 22:39
  • @ElberichSchneider: isn't orthography the use of letters and spelling? The question is about punctuation. And do you really mean to say that using punctuation differently does not change the meaning of a sentence? – Margana Jul 31 '15 at 23:19
  • @Tarius The first sentence seems like sure enough is playing a main role in the sentence, whereas sure enough in second sentence is just kind of interrupting the sentence. Am I correct? – sooeithdk Aug 01 '15 at 00:02
  • @ElberichSchneider: you are correct, and I apologise with regard to "orthography". I still ask whether you think that sentences will always have the same meaning regardless of punctuation. – Margana Aug 01 '15 at 07:18
  • @Margana In English you use a comma whenever you intend the reader to "hear" a Mid-High-Low-Mid intonation sequence, as if you were speaking it aloud. This is phonological, nothing that have to di with meaning. – Elberich Schneider Aug 01 '15 at 07:41
  • @ElberichSchneider: so why do people use "a Mid-High-Low-Mid intonation" when speaking? – Margana Aug 01 '15 at 07:46
  • @Margana It helps make clear what people want to say, but, nevertheless, this has nothing to do with meaning. – Elberich Schneider Aug 02 '15 at 00:16
  • @ElberichSchneider: Do these two sentences mean the same to you, Elberich? - "There is a difference between people who make sense, like me and you, and others who talk rubbish." / "There is a difference between people who make sense, like me, and you and others who talk rubbish." – Margana Aug 02 '15 at 12:33
  • @Margana They're different, of course, because they'd be pronounced differently; the contour would appear after me in one and you in the other, changing the articulation of the constituents. That's what intonation does, except it doesn't have a binary range (comma/no comma) -- it's got several continuous variables to play with. Lots more bandwidth in speech than in writing. – Elberich Schneider Aug 02 '15 at 15:49
  • @ Elberich: There is a difference between people who make sense, like me, and you and others who talk rubbish. – Margana Aug 02 '15 at 16:04
  • While the punctuation (none of it as I would do it) might affect the meaning in other sentences with similar structure, in the example sentence there is no real ambiguity and nothing that can really be emphasized differently. So the punctuation makes no difference. – Hot Licks Oct 31 '15 at 01:25

2 Answers2

2

I knew he was going to be there, and sure enough, he was there.

Assuming one follows the "rules", a parenthetical phrase should be set off by commas. Plus two sentences joined by "and" should have a comma ahead of the "and".

The problem is that one would normally consider "sure enough" to be parenthetical -- you can write "I knew he was going to be there, and he was there", and it makes sense, suggesting that "sure enough" is unnecessary and should be considered parenthetical. But you failed to use a comma between "and" and "sure" to mark the start of the parenthetical phrase. Without the comma the reader must work harder to parse the sentence.

By these criteria you should add a comma between "and" and "sure".

However, "and sure enough" is something of a set phrase/idiom, and one could argue that, as such, the meaning is easily recognized and the comma is not required (especially since, in normal speech, a pause before "sure" would probably not occur).

It's something of a judgment call.

Hot Licks
  • 27,508
0

Both sentences are correct: in the second sentence the comma after the "and" opens up the parenthesis, in order to allow extra information to be added. However the meaning and the impression both remain the same.

See: Should there be a comma after 'and'?

In most cases punctuation will not change the meaning of a sentence, there are however exceptions, e.g. eats, shoots and leaves. Remove all the commas and the impression that you suddenly receive is no longer of a cowboy but a panda.

Community
  • 1
Tarius
  • 169