The "I don't drink" sentence was originally part of an online discussion. So, it was a reader's punctuation. Do you think the paper should have corrected the comma when they recycled the discussion content for this column? Or, since it begins with a disclaimer, is it okay as is?
Speaking of missing commas (of another type), when I clicked the link in your post to view the article, I noticed that the Post's web page welcomed me as Hello [username] instead of Hello, [username]. Looks like someone at the web site needs to read up on your advice about the comma of direct adddress.
I'm no copy editor, but I am a like-minded soul whose job often involves proofreading and correcting documents. If someone had put a comma between "drink" and "because," I probably would have marked it out as extraneous -- but now I'll have to double-check those situations to make sure I'm not creating ambiguity. Bah! Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
Your question's as interesting as your hair, but those things have to be edited -- in fact, the questions are edited even before they appear in the chat. It's "adapted" from the chat, not a verbatim transcript thereof.
It would be different if it were introduced as "Jimmy78965@aol.com wrote in an online discussion ..."
I love the laughs I get from such ambiguities, but, sadly, many people simply cannot discern them. A bit off topic, but this goes for the pesky apostrophe, too. When I taught university English, most of my students were simply unable to see any difference between "A smart dog knows its master" and "A smart dog knows it's master." I would be laughing, and they would stare at me like deer in headlights. Sigh.
The power of the AP's "essential clauses, nonessential clauses" and "essential phrases, nonessential phrases" entries is great.
ReplyDeleteA sentence with two very different interpretations when you see it written is:
ReplyDelete"I wouldn't vote for Barack Obama because he's black."
The "I don't drink" sentence was originally part of an online discussion. So, it was a reader's punctuation. Do you think the paper should have corrected the comma when they recycled the discussion content for this column? Or, since it begins with a disclaimer, is it okay as is?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of missing commas (of another type), when I clicked the link in your post to view the article, I noticed that the Post's web page welcomed me as
ReplyDeleteHello [username] instead of Hello, [username]. Looks like someone at the web site needs to read up on your advice about the comma of direct adddress.
I'm no copy editor, but I am a like-minded soul whose job often involves proofreading and correcting documents. If someone had put a comma between "drink" and "because," I probably would have marked it out as extraneous -- but now I'll have to double-check those situations to make sure I'm not creating ambiguity. Bah! Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
ReplyDeleteYour question's as interesting as your hair, but those things have to be edited -- in fact, the questions are edited even before they appear in the chat. It's "adapted" from the chat, not a verbatim transcript thereof.
ReplyDeleteIt would be different if it were introduced as "Jimmy78965@aol.com wrote in an online discussion ..."
you have to love the dramatic pauses that commas create, especially in statements like that.
ReplyDeleteI don't drink because I hate commas...
ReplyDeleteI love the laughs I get from such ambiguities, but, sadly, many people simply cannot discern them. A bit off topic, but this goes for the pesky apostrophe, too. When I taught university English, most of my students were simply unable to see any difference between "A smart dog knows its master" and "A smart dog knows it's master." I would be laughing, and they would stare at me like deer in headlights. Sigh.
ReplyDelete