0

What is the function of the comma here? Is it to avoid ambiguity?

He should send his troops across the river, either in sufficient numbers to overwhelm the opposition forces or (in sufficient numbers) to hold the bridge.

I am, by the way, having some difficulty in understanding the purposes of commas, especially in such sentences as this one:

On the other hand, he did work hard.

Is the purpose of the comma here to mark the adjunct "on the other hand" as modifying the entire clause (with the comma functioning as a delimiting comma), or is it to mark it off as parenthetical?

Note: I am unsure whether this question is suitable for this site. However, after posting this question on the English Learners StackExchange and receiving linguistically deficient answers, I have decided to repost it here.

Justin
  • 10,186
Eric
  • 706
  • 3
    Does this answer your second question? Comma after introductory words, phrases, clauses: unacceptable, obligatory or optional? (usually better to use one, but optional with some short intros). Really, the comma is optional in your first example, the two variants differing semantically only in emphasis. But the commaed version is easier on the vocal chords and brain (parsing). – Edwin Ashworth Dec 30 '21 at 16:08
  • 2
    The sentence should be corrected. Either remove the parentheses (the second in sufficient numbers is not optional in this position) or rearrange: He should send his troops across the river, in sufficient numbers to either overwhelm the opposition forces or hold the bridge. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 30 '21 at 16:19
  • The redirect only addresses the OP's second example, with its introductory phrase. The comma here is writer's choice: He should send his troops across the river, in sufficient numbers to either overwhelm the opposition forces or hold the bridge. With the comma, everything after the comma is considered nonessential (extra information, an aside): He should send his troops across the river ([and, by the way,] in sufficient numbers to either overwhelm the opposition forces or hold the bridge). If it is essential, omit the comma. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 30 '21 at 16:39
  • @Edwin Ashworth, may I ask you what the difference in emphasis is with the comma versus without the comma? – Eric Dec 30 '21 at 16:44
  • The comma-containing version adds two constraints to the assertion 'He should send his troops across the river'. A dash would also work. This assertion may well have not been made previously. // The commaless version emphasises the two ways the operation should be planned; it seems a done deal that some troops will be sent across the river. // The end results differ little. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 30 '21 at 17:16
  • @Edwin Ashworth. Ah, I see. So what you are essentially saying is that without the comma, the focus is more on the result than on the means, while with the comma, the focus is more on the means than on the result. – Eric Dec 30 '21 at 17:31
  • I wouldn't use 'result' or 'means' here. With the comma, the focus is more on the adjuration to get troops across the river. Without the comma, on the tactics and methodology involved. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 30 '21 at 17:48
  • In your first example, the phrase following the main clause is nonrestrictive; it doesn't alter the meaning of "He should send his troops across the river." Whether he sends enough to "overwhelm the opposition forces" or "hold the bridge," he still "should." Nonrestrictive clauses are generally set off by commas. If it were "He should send his troops across the river in the morning," the prepositional phrase "in the morning," restricts what he "should" do, so no comma is needed. – Zan700 Dec 31 '21 at 03:33
  • As I and Borges (at a distance) have maintained, time alters the meaning of both questions and answers. Closing time, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here, comes too soon. – Zan700 Dec 31 '21 at 03:38

0 Answers0