comma before past participle: pair of arms, wrapped in a

spearfish

Member
English
Can someone solve a punctuation debate? My sister insists that the comma after arms should be kept in the sentence below. I say no. Can someone conclude who is right and explain why? If the phrase "wrapped in a tight sweater" was at the beginning of the sentence (before "All I can see..."), it would be a case of a misplaced modifier, wouldn't it?

(the girl is explaining a guy she sees)

"All I can see are a broad chest and a thick pair of arms, wrapped in a tight sweater."
 
  • No. "All I can see are a broad chest and a thick pair of arms, wrapped in a tight sweater." does not need a comma. The comma that is there is separating the subject from the verb.

    "Wrapped in a tight sweater, all I can see are a broad chest and a thick pair of arms." requires the comma.

    and the verb 'are' should be replaced in both cases by 'is'. All is singular, e.g. "All is never enough!"
     
    It looks to me like it makes a difference if you are a careful writer and a careful reader. Without the comma, I would take "wrapped in a tight sweater" to be modifying "arms" only; insert the comma, and I would take "wrapped ... sweater" to be modifying both "chest" and "arms." I think the sweater does cover both, so there should be a comma.
     
    It looks to me like it makes a difference if you are a careful writer and a careful reader. Without the comma, I would take "wrapped in a tight sweater" to be modifying "arms" only; insert the comma, and I would take "wrapped ... sweater" to be modifying both "chest" and "arms." I think the sweater does cover both, so there should be a comma.

    I agree.
     
    I think a comma suggests that the bit after it is non-defining whereas I think wrapped in a tight sweater is intended to be defining. So I wouldn't put the comma.

    I don't see how the comma would indicate that wrapped in a tight sweater modifies two co-ordinated noun phrases as opposed to a single noun phrase.
     
    Back
    Top