The Common Comma: Part Ii
| Publication year | 1995 |
| Pages | 2545 |
1995, November, Pg. 2545. The Common Comma: Part II
This column shows how a comma, or the lack of one, can significantly change your meaning. It also addresses several comma issues raised by readers, but not fully resolved by my previous column on commas.(fn1)
Restrictive phrases or clauses are needed in a sentence because they restrict, or limit, the content of the words they modify. In contrast, nonrestrictive phrases or clauses are not necessary to the basic meaning of a sentence; they provide additional, nonessential information.
Although the restrictive and nonrestrictive labels are easy to confuse, the appropriate punctuation for each is critical. Commas would interrupt the flow of essential information in a restrictive phrase or clause and, therefore, should not be added. However, you need only look at the prefix of norare-strictive to remember that the rule for a nonrestrictive phrase or clause is the inverse: when the information is not needed, commas are required.
By choosing restrictive phrasing in the first two examples, the writer conveys one message: that there are several word processors and that the information about the monitor is necessary to identify which word processor is at issue. In contrast, by setting off the information with commas(fn2) in the non-restrictive phrasing, the writer conveys a different message: that only a single word processor is at issue, and the monitor information is merely an added detail.
This word processor example shows how misuse of the restrictive or nonrestrictive phrasing can blur otherwise clear ideas. However, the following example shows how the problem can transform from a slight blur into miscommunication of the fundamental message of the sentence.
The first sentence is a less serious indictment. It restricts the attorneys who misuse the legal system to a limited group---those who intentionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial