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

[spearfish]

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."

 

[PaulQ]

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!"

 

[Fabulist]

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.

 

[Glenfarclas]

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.

 

[natkretep]

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.