comma before 'as' [conjunction]: is depressed, as his wife has just

[Karen123456]

He is depressed, as his wife has just passed away.

Is a comma needed after 'depressed'?

Thanks.

 

[Tazzler]

I wouldn't put it.

 

[Parla]

Yes, I believe the comma is needed.

 

[panjandrum]

I do too.
It's a joining comma, preceding "as" being a conjunction.
Apart from that, without the comma there is a small risk that a reader might think:
He is depressed as his wife = he and his wife are equally depressed.
Such a reader would come to an abrupt halt in comprehension at that point.

 

[SunnyS]

Is a comma needed after 'depressed'?

(No, falling in love is what is needed.)

Apart from that, I would definitely insert the comma, even if it's not obligatory, it seems to render everything clearer. Even if there really isn't a chance that someone would actually misunderstand it as "they are both depressed," the construction itself would be leaning a bit in that direction.

 

[Tazzler]

Funny. If "as" were "because" I think people would definitely say no comma. But with "as" it seems to be different.

 

[Forero]

As is different because of its ambiguity.

 

[greatbear]

Comma looks funny, unless your real emphasis is just on his being depressed and his wife's passing away is a very superfluous fact. Also, if his wife's passing away is a revelation, then you may put comma there.

In all other cases, no comma - the sentence flows fine without comma and there is no chance of anybody reading "as" in the sense of "like."

 

[Copyright]

I would use a comma here. While it’s possible to spend time taking apart every sentence and conjecturing about who will or will not be confused, it's probably better just to post a few helpful signs, like this comma. People are probably reading this as just one of many sentences -- and with "as" having a variety of meanings, it’s kinder to keep readers moving forward instead of having to back-track to make sure they’re on the right path.

 

[Tazzler]

As is different because of its ambiguity.

I hold that if any comparative construction is intended then a preceding "as" is required for the sentence to be most idiomatic anyways.

 

[Forero]

As has many other possible meanings, not just one, to eliminate.

To me the comma represents the intended cadential pitch contour and rhythm that goes with as as this type of conjunction and without which the sentence is not idiomatic.

 

[greatbear]

Unless the context, like the ones I outlined in my earlier post on the topic, demands it, I hold the comma here to be unnecessary to the degree that it is wrong. It brings in a greater pause than required in the flow of the sentence and that changes the meaning.

It's a short, simple sentence and I don't see the need to complicate it with commas. The comma is heavy on the eyes here and it - to reiterate - brings in a shade of meaning I am not sure is anticipated.

Can you provide the context or quote a larger portion to which this quote belongs, Karen?

 

[Karen123456]

Can you provide the context or quote a larger portion to which this quote belongs, Karen?

The sentence is my own creation. I ask this question because I notice that a comma is almost always used after the word preceding 'as'. Thus I am curious to know whether there is a need for a comma.

Thanks again to all of you for your help.

 

[EStjarn]

Is a comma needed after 'depressed'?

He is depressed as his wife has just passed away.

I agree with those who feel this sentence doesn't produce any ambiguity. Unless we read at a snail's pace, it's too short for any confusion to develop.

The choice between using and not using a comma seems to me, in this case, a question of style rather than of need. If we want to hold on to tradition, we use a comma; if we want to follow the trend, we don't use one.

Here's a quotation from a fairly recent thread on the use of commas for introductory phrases:

I fear that it is time for me to make my comma speech. The current tendency is to eliminate commas; to use commas only where, otherwise, without them would cause confusion. Introductory phrases or words do not always need a comma following them. Eg. Within a year she was speaking French. It was as easy as pie or as simple as bonjour.
​

 

[Forero]

I think this particular sentence is more of a problem for those who read at a cheetah's pace. Sometimes we see things that are not there, like "He is (as) depressed as if his wife has just passed away." A comma makes it easier to see there is no if. Without the comma, I have to take a second look, albeit momentary.

 

[Andygc]

Here's a quotation from a fairly recent thread on the use of commas for introductory phrases:

I fear that it is time for me to make my comma speech. The current tendency is to eliminate commas; to use commas only where, otherwise, without them would cause confusion. Introductory phrases or words do not always need a comma following them. Eg. Within a year she was speaking French. It was as easy as pie or as simple as bonjour.
​

Just one person's opinion, and one to which I do not subscribe, although I agree wholly with the part that I have highlighted. I agree with those who would use a comma in the OP's sentence and I would go as far as to say that when "as" is used to mean "because", the preceding comma is needed. Its function is not to avoid confusion over meaning, but to prevent a hesitation while the brain resolves the potential for confusion.

I believe that we process sentences as we read them - at least, I do. Thus, when you (I?) read the sentence He is depressed as his wife has just passed away you (I?) process it as {he is depressed} - {he is depressed as} (ahh, it's going to be a comparison) - {he is depressed as his wife} (ahh, they are both depressed) - {he is depressed as his wife has passed away} (drat, I got that wrong, the writer meant as = because)

If I read {he is depressed, as} that immediately tells me that as = because, so I get the correct meaning first time, don't have a slight hiatus, and move smoothly on to the next sentence.

 

[greatbear]

Thus, when you (I?) read the sentence He is depressed as his wife has just passed away you (I?) process it as {he is depressed} - {he is depressed as} (ahh, it's going to be a comparison) - {he is depressed as his wife} (ahh, they are both depressed) - {he is depressed as his wife has passed away} (drat, I got that wrong, the writer meant as = because)

If I read {he is depressed, as} that immediately tells me that as = because, so I get the correct meaning first time, don't have a slight hiatus, and move smoothly on to the next sentence.

In such a short and simple sentence I don't think the mind would have any need to stop and reprocess. A major concern is the change in meaning with the comma:

1. He is depressed, as his wife has just passed away.

"His wife's passing away" becomes a minor secondary event; all that we are concerned about is that he is depressed. With the comma, we're treating the passing away of the wife as nothing but some supplementary information.

2. He is depressed as his wife has just passed away.

This time the man's depression and why he's depressed all is vital information. The reason is also important (and normally it would be in such a case; of course it might not be sometimes, which is why I asked Karen earlier for context).

 

[Karen123456]

He is depressed, as his wife has just passed away.
He is depressed, for his wife has just passed away.

I also notice a comma is always used after the word preceding 'for' if the said word means 'because'. I think the comma makes it is easier to understand that 'as' and 'for' mean 'because' and thus the reader need not refer back to see what each word stands for.

Is my reasoning logical?

 

[EStjarn]

Just one person's opinion, and one to which I do not subscribe...

It seems to be more than just one person's opinion. Here's from Wikipedia:

Barbara Child claims that in American English there is a trend toward a decreased use of the comma (Child, 1992, p. 398). This is reinforced by an article by [editor] Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek. [See below.][English writer and journalist] Lynne Truss says that this is equally true in the UK and has been a slow, steady trend for at least a century: "Nowadays… A passage peppered with commas — which in the past would have indicated painstaking and authoritative editorial attention — smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books." (Truss, 2004, p. 97–98)
​

From the referenced Newsweek article above (July 23, 2007):

Commas are disparaged as literary clutter. They're axed in the name of stylistic "simplicity." Once, introductory prepositional phrases ("In 1776, Thomas Jefferson ... ") routinely took commas; once, compound sentences were strictly divided by commas; once, sentences that began with "once," "naturally," "surprisingly," "inevitably" and the like usually took a comma to set them apart. No more. These and other usages have slowly become discretionary or unacceptable.
​

(Note that the article above isn't enthusiastic about the alleged trend. Neither is this forum member.)

 

[Andygc]

In such a short and simple sentence I don't think the mind would have any need to stop and reprocess. A major concern is the change in meaning with the comma:

1. He is depressed, as his wife has just passed away.

"His wife's passing away" becomes a minor secondary event; all that we are concerned about is that he is depressed. With the comma, we're treating the passing away of the wife as nothing but some supplementary information.

2. He is depressed as his wife has just passed away.

This time the man's depression and why he's depressed all is vital information. The reason is also important (and normally it would be in such a case; of course it might not be sometimes, which is why I asked Karen earlier for context).

I completely disagree with you. The comma has no such effect on meaning. The comma serves solely to make it clear that "as" means "because".

As for processing, you are looking at this as a single, isolated sentence. Sentences rarely exist in isolation and my comment on processing assumes that I am reading a block of text in which this sentence appears. I have no doubt whatsoever that sentences other than the simplest are processed in pieces. Any help in identifying those pieces, for example by punctuation, helps comprehension.

It seems to be more than just one person's opinion. (Note that the article above isn't enthusiastic about the alleged trend. Neither is this forum member.)

Fair enough, I meant one person's opinion in the context of the thread. from your (comment) we seem to be in harmony about keeping commas

 

[dianediaz80]

I strongly believe that there should be a comma after the word depressed.

 

[Forero]

For is a different sort of conjunction than because. Because subordinates one clause within another:

He is depressed because his wife just passed away. = Because his wife has just passed away, he is depressed.

But the conjunction for, like but, goes between clauses of equal rank neither being a part of the other, to form a compound sentence:

He is depressed, for his wife has just passed away.
For his wife has just passed away, he is depressed.

The way I see it, as can play either role:

As his wife has just passed away, he is depressed. = Because his wife has just passed away, he is depressed.

He is depressed, as only by being depressed can he take his wife's death in survivable doses. = He is depressed, for only by being depressed can he take his wife's death in survivable doses.I would need to rearrange this last sentence to use because:

... because he can take ... only by being depressed.

and it still seems a little "off" to me.

As is notoriously ambiguous, sometimes having a different meaning without the comma:

I took my coffee with me, as I was voting that day. [as = "for"]
I took my coffee with me as I was voting that day. [as = "while"]

I take as in our particular sentence to mean "for", so a comma is indicated. And the temporary decoding problems are real. I get to the word just before I realize that as may not be meant as a subordinator.

In the examples provided in the sites Greatbear links to (Thank you, Greatbear), the ambiguity is minimal because their as clauses are shorter and do not bring in a different person as subject. I can read them without feeling the need for a comma. Even "stayed home for she had no car" seems to work.

Two other things about the original sentence: (1) The first clause is very short, and the second clause is not, which creates a little "imbalance" and (2) There is a lot of emotion in the sentence, which to me interferes with decoding.

 

[EStjarn]

One of the arguments for using a comma in the topic sentence is that it supposedly eliminates the need for reprocessing:

... without the comma there is a small risk that a reader might think: He is depressed as his wife = he and his wife are equally depressed. Such a reader would come to an abrupt halt in comprehension at that point.

People are probably reading this as just one of many sentences -- and with "as" having a variety of meanings, it’s kinder to keep readers moving forward instead of having to back-track to make sure they’re on the right path.

[The function of the preceding comma] is not to avoid confusion over meaning, but to prevent a hesitation while the brain resolves the potential for confusion.

The need for reprocessing depends on which meaning we part from that 'as' takes as we encounter it. In the topic sentence, if by chance we part from that 'as' means 'because', no reprocessing is needed. If we don't, we have to reprocess. But that's not unique to the alternative without a comma; it can equally as well happen when a comma is used, since 'as' has multiple meanings. For example:

He is depressed, as his wife has just passed away. [as = because]
He is depressed, as his wife once used to be. [as = in the same manner that]
He is depressed, as his wife is aware of. [as = which fact]
​

In these cases, reprocessing is necessary unless we happened to guess the correct meaning of 'as' at the moment we encountered the word.

 

[Andygc]

The need for reprocessing depends on which meaning we part from that 'as' takes as we encounter it. In the topic sentence, if by chance we part from that 'as' means 'because', no reprocessing is needed. If we don't, we have to reprocess. But that's not unique to the alternative without a comma; it can equally as well happen when a comma is used, since 'as' has multiple meanings. For example:

He is depressed, as his wife has just passed away. [as = because]
He is depressed, as his wife once used to be. [as = in the same manner that]
He is depressed, as his wife is aware of. [as = which fact]
​

In these cases, reprocessing is necessary unless we happened to guess the correct meaning of 'as' at the moment we encountered the word.

Good point. That doesn't invalidate my preference for the comma as a processing flag. In all of those sentences (without the comma), you can arrive at the point {he is depressed as his wife}. Reading the subsequent text provides the hesitation while the meaning of "as" is reconsidered. Having the comma warns that all of the subsequent clause should be processed as a unit to get the correct meaning of "as".

Is that a reasonable justification for having a comma in all but the simplest x is y as a is b sentences?

 

[EStjarn]

Having the comma warns that all of the subsequent clause should be processed as a unit to get the correct meaning of "as".

Possibly, yes. However, it's also possible that the mere presence of the ambiguous word 'as' warns a reader that the following part of the sentence must be processed as a unit, i.e. we automatically refrain from giving 'as' an immediate fixed meaning because we know by experience that the word has different significations.

Note that I'm not trying to invalidate any preferences. Personally I'm not sure what I would do in this particular case - whether I'd put a comma or not. I think context (which there apparently is none) would have helped me decide. For example, in the following case I'd probably reason that a comma would be superfluous:

A: Could you tell me why C is depressed?
B: He is depressed as his wife has just passed away.
​

 

[Andygc]

For example, in the following case I'd probably reason that a comma would be superfluous:

A: Could you tell me why C is depressed?
B: He is depressed as his wife has just passed away.
​

Agreed. The meaning of as has been defined by the question.

 

[panjandrum]

I suspect my difficulty with the comma-less version is that I seldom use "as" in this sense so my first thought on seeing "as" is that a comparison is on the way. The comma stops that. True, what follows could well be a structure such as EStjarn's (2) or (3), but I've been cautioned by the comma.
I am sure this is a personal quirk and I've already confessed (in other threads) to liking commas more than other contributors.

 

[Forero]

For me, I see the as without a comma as a strong subordinator. I begin reading the second clause as part of the first, only to find it was not meant that way. Yes, even with a comma the second clause may turn out to be a non-essential part of the first clause, but the comma tells me the first clause will probably make sense without fully processing the second clause first.

Without the comma, I am looking for the end of the first clause only to find that it probably, and on second reading definitely, has already occurred.

I reach a final decision, if that is possible, on the exact meaning of as only after reading to the end of both clauses, but it is uncomfortable to me to have to reject the idea of the second clause as an essential part of the first clause in contradiction to what seems to be clearly indicated by the visible structure.

In other words, I prefer to reason out the semantic intent after I understand the syntactic (grammatical, structural) intent, and the comma prevents me from making inappropriate assumptions about what sort of sentence I am looking at.