Dobry den, Petr: On Apr 10, 7:09 am, "Petr Hrubis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm quite interested in the punctuation. In Czech, it is totally > different, so I cannot rely upon what I know from my native language. > I think I've heard that the American rules differ from the British > ones. Could somebody possibly make a summary of those differences? > Thanks a lot in advance! > > Best wishes, > > Petr > > P.S.: One example: I'd like to know, for instance, why sometimes > there's a comma before 'too' at the end of a sentence, and sometimes > not. Is that a matter of different traditions (e.g. British vs. > American) or different contexts? Thank you.
Commas in English, be it British or other, are a matter of style, taste and convention--for the most part. I consider certain commas to be mandatory, such as before a conjunction joining two relatively long independent clauses, between place names (London, England or Philadlephia, Pennsylvania), in dates (January 3, 1949). There are many more. I've read a lot of both kinds of English, and I can't say I've noticed a difference in comma usage. I don't know exactly how British commas might differ from American ones, but the basic rules for both can be found in a stylebook. The bible of American style is probably "The Elements of Style," to be found free online at <http://www.bartleby.com/141/>. It is short and spare, and every writer should know it by heart. The actual handbook for American style will vary according to the kind of writing. Journalists might use "The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual," and everybody else "The Chicago Manual of Style," online with a free trial at <http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/contents.html>. The main difference between British and American punctuation, of course, is that we (Americans) usually put punctuation inside closing quotation marks, and they put it outside. There is also a comma, what some call the "Oxford" comma, that some use and some don't on both sides of the Atlantic. It occurs in lists: My flag is red, white and blue. Their flag is red, white, and blue. Chicago recommends it, but I don't use it anyway. I've noticed a tendency in English, pretty much throughout its life, and especially recently, to use fewer and fewer commas. If you use the ones required and no others, you will rarely go wrong. You will need to keep a few spare ones in your pocket, though, for special cases where to omit the comma would change your meaning or leave a sentence breathless. I'm talking about formal writing, by the way. Creative fiction, dialogue, poetry and such use commas as they like. As for the comma before "too," I tend to use it, but I've seen good writing that doesn't use it, too. I sometimes omit it when it seems right to do so, but it wouldn't have been right to omit it in the previous sentence, if you ask me. Without the comma, the "too" wants to attach to "doesn't use it," whereas with the comma the "too" attaches to "seen." In the sentence, "I gave him one too," the comma is optional, and I think it would break the flow by introducing a pause in the writing that wouldn't exist in speech. I don't think there is a British-American difference here. By the way, my wife and I will be in Prague over the Marathon weekend, so I'm trying to learn some tourist phrases. I can't wait to see the city of 100 spires. > 2007/4/10, splay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > Hello-- > > > On Apr 9, 8:43 pm, "Hou Pei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, everybody > > > I read the following sentences in a newspaper but I don't think they > > > are grammatically correct. > > > Would you write me some suggestion? > > > > 1Their omnipresence means that their problems have stronger impact on > > > consumers than smaller firms, > > > and therefore, deserve more scrutiny. > > > My version: > > > Their omnipresence means that their problems have stronger impact on > > > consumers than smaller firms' > > > and therefore, deserve more scrutiny. > > > You are right about the apostrophe. It's really "stronger impact ... > > than the problems of smaller firms," and that puts "firms" in what > > some call the genetive and I call the possessive case. You are also > > right about the comma. A comma is needed before "and" only when it > > introduces an independent clause, although there are cases where to > > omit it would create ambiguity or worse. This is not one of those > > cases. > > > I would delete the other comma, too. You can't have the comma after > > "therefore" unless you have one right before it to make it > > parenthetical ("than smaller firms and, therefore, deserve"), and I > > think it's cleaner with no commas at all. One comma is wrong, anyhow. > > > > 2They should ensure they operate ethically and without double standards. > > > My version: > > > They should ensure they operate ethically exclusive of double standards. > > > Nope. Wrong word. "Exclusive of" here means that they can employ > > double standards because double standards are an exception to the > > principles of ethical operations. > > > The sentence is faulty, though, in the way that you detected. If I had > > been the copyeditor, I'd have told him to rewrite it keeping in mind > > that double standards are unethical. Maybe, "They should ensure they > > operate ethically, without double standards." This pushes the comma > > almost to the breaking point. Some would use a colon, but I think a > > colon would be too strong. > > > > Thank you > > > > Best Regards > > > Hou Pei- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Correct my English" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/correct-my-english -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
