0

I was recently asked if a comma should always follow a dependent clause if the dependent clause precedes an independent clause. At first glance, I thought this was true, especially since I can't seem to think of any counterexamples, but English grammar has been known to have exceptions to some of its rules. For example, a comma usually isn't used when an independent clause precedes a dependent clause, but there are times when this shouldn't be the case. If I were to say that "Louise didn't go to Bob's house because she forgot the cookies," it's unclear what I mean. One interpretation is that Louise didn't go to Bob's house, and her reason for this was not because she forgot the cookies. Another interpretation is that Louise didn't go to Bob's house, and her reason for this was that she forgot the cookies. So, to remove the ambiguity, we could add a comma: "Louise didn't go to Bob's house, because she forgot the cookies." This means that Louise didn't go to Bob's house, and her reason for this was because she forgot the cookies.

Are there any sentences where, for the sake of clarity, it would be better to omit a comma after a dependent clause when the dependent clause precedes the independent clause?

PiMan
  • 13
  • If the dependent clause goes first, then no; you must use a comma. Because Louise forgot the cookies, she didn't go to Bob's house. The comma is not optional, and there is only one possible interpretation. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 08 '21 at 02:05
  • How is “Louise didn’t go to Bob’s house because she forgot the cookies” ambiguous and how could it possibly be interpreted as “and her reason for this was not because she forgot the cookies??” – Jim Dec 08 '21 at 02:26
  • @Jim "Louise didn’t go to Bob’s house because she forgot the cookies, but rather because she needed to watch her kid sister.” – DjinTonic Dec 08 '21 at 02:30
  • @DjinTonic - I see. But you’ve replaced the period with a comma and added more context. Absent that context I don’t imagine very many people would take the bald statement in that way – Jim Dec 08 '21 at 02:32
  • @Jim Yes, it could have my meaning only in context, e.g., we're thinking of reasons why Louise didn't show up at Bob's and I'm rejecting the cookie reason. I'm just making a case for that meaning. – DjinTonic Dec 08 '21 at 02:34
  • I think there was a mistake, either in communicating or in understanding: "One interpretation is that Louise didn't go to Bob's house, and her reason for this was not because she forgot the cookies." ... should be "... Louise did go to Bob's house, but her reason for this was not because she forgot the cookies." – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '21 at 02:57
  • @AndyBonner That's not a mistake. To add more context, Bob was going to have a party at his house, and Louise was told to bring her homemade cookies to his party. Louise procrastinated because she decided to make the cookies on the same day as the party. Louise made the cookies at her daughter's house, and then took the two-hour trip home so she could gather everything else she needed for the party. However, once she realized that she had left the cookies at her daughter's house, she felt so terrible about her irresponsibility that she didn't want to show her face at the party. – PiMan Dec 08 '21 at 04:56
  • @AndyBonner You could argue that the fact that she forgot the cookies doesn't completely explain why she didn't go to Bob's house, but then we'd continue going off on a tangent. Let's focus on the main question I asked here, shall we? :) – PiMan Dec 08 '21 at 05:02
  • You’re right, we should focus on the main question. But yes, I’m afraid “X didn’t do Y because Z” can’t have a meaning that negates both Y and Z. The two possible meanings are that X didn’t do Y, and the reason was Z, or (with vocal emphasis on the Z) that X did do Y, but for a reason other than Z. But to the main question… – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '21 at 12:19
  • 1
    Meanwhile, I was puzzled by @TinfoilHat's assertion that a dependent clause preceding an independent one must always be followed by a comma. I don't challenge it, but I feel like I can imagine sentences that don't need it. "As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I take a look at my life..."? "Because I could not stop for Death he kindly stopped for me"? (Well, I mean for Emily Dickinson everything is dashes, but...) "When your Daddy gets home you're gonna be in trouble"? Maybe... – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '21 at 12:31
  • Maybe the catch is that all these examples have no coordinating conjunction between the dependent and independent clauses? "Your daddy just got home so you're in trouble" ... definitely feels the need of the comma. Anyway, I find no source saying anything other than "if the dependent clause comes first, the comma is needed," so just musing out loud. Also, if there is any case where fronting the dependent clause introduces rather than resolves ambiguity, I can't think of one. – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '21 at 12:37
  • @AndyBonner: Poetry and lyrics don't count. In normal prose, your editor would always insert a comma after the dependent clause: As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I take a look at my life. Because I could not stop for Death, he kindly stopped for me. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 08 '21 at 15:46
  • @TinfoilHat Right, it's unfortunate that that's what was coming to mind. But even simple sentences like "When I take a shower I sing"? – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '21 at 15:47
  • @AndyBonner: Let's see... When it rains, it pours. Yes, a comma. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 08 '21 at 17:14
  • 'To remove the ambiguity, we could add a comma.' But what if that forces the meaning you don't want? – Edwin Ashworth Dec 08 '21 at 19:10
  • OP: It might be useful if you made clearer that you are asking only about adverbial clauses (at least, I assume that you are). You say "precedes", but an adverbial clause may be considered part of the "following" clause, just as a nominal clause may, and clearly nominal clauses in first position are often not followed by commas. – MarcInManhattan Dec 08 '21 at 20:53

2 Answers2

1

The rule-of-thumb for commas after most 'introductory elements' is that one should usually be included, but that for short examples, the comma is optional. See the comma after introductory elements thread, Kolln's balanced advice.

Surely this makes sense. Of course there will be exceptions.

(Note that a comma would change the meaning with the previous example, from 'Of course there will be exceptions to the rule-of-thumb for commas after most 'introductory elements' is that one should usually be included to 'Of course, there will be exceptions to the caveat for short examples, the comma is optional'.)

With a dependent clause, this is rarely the case, but

  • As he left he sneezed.
  • As he drew she shot.

(showing mere synchronicity, but where the simultaneity needs stressing ... there being no contrast as with a though-clause, balancing as with because- and so that- clauses, or temporal break as with after-, since- and before- clauses)

seem reasonable candidates.

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
0

One good counterexample is this sentence from a translation of Kant:

That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt.

Commas are generally not used in this sort of preposing construction. The subordinate clause "that all our knowledge begins with experience" is not an adjunct modifying the sentence but a complement of the noun "doubt," one that has been shifted to the start of the sentence.

This is a somewhat formal usage, but in this case the comma is omitted regardless of the length of the subordinate clause.

A similar phenomenon occurs in this line from Robert Frost:

Whose woods these are I think I know.

alphabet
  • 18,217