6

"Great Writing" series taught me not to use a comma when listing only two(2) items. Grammarly and Google search seems to tell me the same.

When there are two items in a list, don't use a comma to separate the list items (unless it helps your reader). For example:

  • Please buy bread and milk. ✅

— Grammar Monster

But SAT Reading Passage from Practice 3 from the College Board site has commas for just two item lists. I am confused why this is allowed.

Then, in the roadway beyond, she saw a horse struggling with a more than ample load, and a carter of the sort that seems to bear a sullen hatred against the animal that helps him to earn a living.

(Image of the passage)

It would be greatly appreciated if anybody could sort out my confusion.

Laurel
  • 66,382
Vida
  • 113

3 Answers3

16

A comment by @Peter explains it. I was going to answer on the same basis so I will anyway.

Consider the following:

A. "I saw a horse struggling with (1) an ample load and (2) [struggling with] a carter ..."

That means that the horse was struggling with a carter. In that case "load" and "carter" would be a list of two. As you can see there is no comma.

However, the horse is not struggling with the carter. Instead the intended list is of things that I saw.

B. "I saw (1) a horse struggling with an ample load, and (2) [I saw] a carter ..."

Again there is a list of two. However the separation between the verb "saw" and the noun phrase beginning with "a carter" is long. We need a marker to separate the list items and distinguish sentence A from sentence B.

chasly - supports Monica
  • 37,215
  • ... except that you want the comma before the "and" like in the OP's example, and not after it – Hagen von Eitzen Feb 25 '23 at 17:51
  • 2
    @Hagen von Eitzen - Thanks, I've corrected it. – chasly - supports Monica Feb 25 '23 at 17:58
  • 1
    Absolutely spot on. The person saw two things. The comma makes that clear. – Lambie Feb 25 '23 at 19:00
  • Yes. The prepositional phrase after "struggling," would seem to take two objects if the comma wasn't there. If you removed the prepositional phrase, no comma would be needed. – Zan700 Feb 26 '23 at 03:11
  • 1
    I was taught that the comma is an ideal place to inhale, thus breaking the sentence. That would have the same effect. – Tim Feb 26 '23 at 11:41
  • 1
    Sometimes a comma is just a comma. – Zan700 Feb 27 '23 at 00:44
  • If commas were, breaths I, could say, 'The man breathed , , , irregularly.' – HippoSawrUs Mar 01 '23 at 03:02
  • @HippoSawrUs - If commas were only used for breaths then you could indeed do that. Except you are confusing direct and reported speech. E.g. In direct speech you could write The man gasped, "Help , , , help!" Authors do use various ways of showing pauses and/or breaths, e.g. I have seen, The man gasped, "Help . . . help . . . help me please" – chasly - supports Monica Mar 01 '23 at 13:06
13

As Lawler explains elsewhere, the purpose of a comma is to represent a characteristic change in intonation found in spoken English. The "rules" for comma placement are really just heuristics for determining where native speakers tend to use that change in tone. Commas would, in most cases, be just useless ornamentation if they served only to indicate that specific rules were being followed.

In the example you provide, a speaker likely would use that change in tone in the place where the comma occurs. This process is largely automatic; most speakers don't even notice when they are doing it without paying close attention. So, regardless of whether it violates the rules prescriptive grammarians would like to impose, this usage makes perfect sense.

Summary: Everything your English teacher told you about commas is wrong. Attempting to create precise, fully comprehensive rules for comma placement is an exercise in futility.

alphabet
  • 18,217
  • 1
    Sure, but that's not the case here. – HippoSawrUs Feb 25 '23 at 15:52
  • 2
    @HippoSawrUs I'm pretty sure it is the case here, when I read it out loud. – alphabet Feb 25 '23 at 16:06
  • 1
    Sometimes intonation changes because the meaning has changed. It was just a poor old horsey, and then it's a quiet condemnation of the apathy of man, with a comma. OMG, that's deep. That versus borderline but unmentionable animal abuse, possibly, without a comma. Meh. Sometimes the horse comes before the cart. – HippoSawrUs Feb 25 '23 at 17:10
2

I think that you are confusing two different situations.

Without more details, I strongly suspect that the "Great Writing" series, Grammarly, and Google search are telling you not to use a comma between two conjuncts when they are the only conjuncts in a series. For example: "I have two cats: Fluffy, Mittens." The illustration that you included from Grammar Monster says the same thing. (Note that this rule is not absolute and that occasionally a comma actually works well in such situations.)

The Saki story, on the other hand, uses a coordinating conunction to separate two conjuncts: "a horse struggling with a more than ample load" and "a carter of the sort that seems . . .". However, Saki has decided to make the second of those "parenthetical" (or "nonessential", etc.). He has therefore surrounded it (along with the preceding conjunction) with paired commas. The second comma would appear at the end of the sentence (immediately before the period) and has therefore been omitted. What he's done is entirely acceptable and quite common. (Personally, I see no reason to make the second conjunct parenthetical and therefore would probably have omitted that comma, but that is to a certain extent a matter of opinion.)

Note that some people would advocate for the comma on grounds of clarity, arguing that it helps to distinguish the conjuncts in a rather lengthy sentence.

TLDR: The grammar sources that you cite discuss use of the comma to separate conjuncts, while Saki uses the conjunction "and" to separate conjuncts. He uses the comma for an entirely different purpose, so the grammar sources' advice doesn't apply.

MarcInManhattan
  • 7,930
  • 3
    I would be one of the last group you mentioned. You could have "She saw a horse and a carter", but without the comma it reads as though the horse is struggling with a load and a carter. – Peter Feb 25 '23 at 03:15
  • @Peter Yes, it is potentially ambiguous without the comma, but I think that context would make Saki's meaning clear. If not, then (if I were editing) I might recommend trying to reword the sentence to remove the ambiguity. There are some situations in which I accept the use of commas merely to remove ambiguity, but they are fairly rare. (Keep in mind that the comma is not entirely harmless: Some people might expect a new main clause to begin after ", and", creating a garden-path situation.) But yes, there's certainly a wide range of opinions on this issue. – MarcInManhattan Feb 25 '23 at 03:22