comma before 'to' / 'for' / 'so' [preposition, conjunction]

N

navi

Banned
armenian
Are these sentences correct:

1-I didn't go out, to study for my exam.
2-I didn't go out, so that I could take care of my bedridden grandmother.
3-I didn't go out, for her not to be alone.


Aren't the commas necessary in these sentences?
If we take them off, won't the meanings change?

I didn't go out to study for my exam. I went out to have fun.
I didn't go out for her not to be alone. I went out because I wanted to. She can take care of herself.
 
    • Eddie said:
    Hello, Navi!

    The first sentence doesn't make sense as it is written. A more appropriate manner of expression would be I didn't go out so (that) I could study for my exam. The word in parentheses can be omitted without changing the meaning. No comma is needed.

    The second sentence doesn't require a comma.

    The third sentence, like the first, would never be said by anyone with an education. Better stated, it should read I didn't go out because I didn't want her to be alone.

    You can find out when to use commas by googling to those sites that explain English grammar.

    Ed
    Click to expand...
    I agree except I would not omit "that", and I don't even know why.

    And I believe both of these are correct:

    I didn't go out because I didn't want her to be alone.
    I didn't go out, because I didn't want her to be alone.

    When two complete sentences are connected with a conjunction, a comma is always correct. But when the two sentences connected are short, many people omit the comma. I would write that sentence with no comma also. :)

    The problem with rules about commas is that fine writers don't follow them. Some rules are so universally ignored that I wonder what the point is in learning them in the first place!

    Gaer
     
    Please EDDIE,
    The third sentence, like the first, would never be said by anyone with an education.
    Click to expand...
    I didn't understand what negative connotaion may Navi's 3rd sentence have?
    does it insinuate the author is bothered with staying with his grandmother? What makes you think he is? is it just the use of the comma?
    thanks
    Nsonia
     
    i think the third sentence should be, if you want to maintain its structure, 'in order for her not to be alone'. in which case it doesn't matter whether you put in a comma or not.

    ps the insertion of 'in order' also works with the first sentence; 'in order to study'

    i'm surprised at the 'never be said by anyone with an education' stab. ???
     
    fetchezlavache said:
    i think the third sentence should be, if you want to maintain its structure, 'in order for her not to be alone'. in which case it doesn't matter whether you put in a comma or not.

    ps the insertion of 'in order' also works with the first sentence; 'in order to study'

    i'm surprised at the 'never be said by anyone with an education' stab. ???
    Click to expand...
    I had the same thought. Saying something in a way that is not that way native speakers normally express themselves has nothing to do with "not being educated". There are millions of people who have problems with English who speak their own native languages very well and who are very WELL-educated. :)

    Gaer
     
    gaer said:
    I would write that sentence with no comma also. :)
    Click to expand...

    In another thread, it's about "any vs. no" and here's my question to what you wrote, Gaer:

    What a compound is "with no"? If I would translate it - and you know what I mean - it would sound so uggly.

    I've always used "without a comma", but never seen "with no comma". Is it correct English?
     
    Nsonia said:
    Please EDDIE,

    I didn't understand what negative connotaion may Navi's 3rd sentence have?
    does it insinuate the author is bothered with staying with his grandmother? What makes you think he is? is it just the use of the comma?
    thanks
    Nsonia
    Click to expand...

    Nsonia, sentence 3 does not necessarily have a negative connotation, it is only grammatically incorrect. I've been wondering if you're confusing "no education" with "no manners"? I know that in Spanish for example, "educación" can mean manners, but in English, "education" only refers to learning. "Manners", or "courtesy", is not the synonymous with education. Hope this helps...
     
    whodunit said:
    In another thread, it's about "any vs. no" and here's my question to what you wrote, Gaer:

    What a compound is "with no"? If I would translate it - and you know what I mean - it would sound so uggly.

    I've always used "without a comma", but never seen "with no comma". Is it correct English?
    Click to expand...

    Hi, whodunit;

    In answer to your question, both are fine. They are both correct.
     
    LizzieUSA said:
    Nsonia, sentence 3 does not necessarily have a negative connotation, it is only grammatically incorrect. I've been wondering if you're confusing "no education" with "no manners"? I know that in Spanish for example, "educación" can mean manners, but in English, "education" only refers to learning. "Manners", or "courtesy", is not the synonymous with education. Hope this helps...
    Click to expand...
    I don't think it's that simple. To infer that someone has "no education" has a lot of negative nuances, at leat the way I see it. I think it's another way of saying that someone is "poorly educated", and although this SHOULD not have anything to do with manners, I think there is an implied meaning that is negative. :)

    Gaer
     
    Hi all;

    As stated before....IF you add a conjunction to the two parts of the sentence you can then omit the comma....yet with no conjunction added..I always use a comma...personal prefrence....

    te gato;)
     
    te gato said:
    Hi all;

    As stated before....IF you add a conjunction to the two parts of the sentence you can then omit the comma....yet with no conjunction added..I always use a comma...personal prefrence....

    te gato;)
    Click to expand...
    Te gato,

    If you prefer something, then it is a preference.

    Sharon :)
     
    Thank you LizzieUSA,
    I think it's still a negative connotation not relating to the manners (politeness) but rather to the way one has been taught the english language.
    thanks again
    Nsonia
     
    Sharon said:
    Te gato,

    If you prefer something, then it is a preference.

    Sharon :)
    Click to expand...
    Thank you Sharon..
    I know...
    I really have to either speed up my fingers..
    or slow down my brain...
    I am not sure which would be better...mmmm
    te gato;)
     
    gaer said:
    I had the same thought. Saying something in a way that is not that way native speakers normally express themselves has nothing to do with "not being educated". There are millions of people who have problems with English who speak their own native languages very well and who are very WELL-educated. :)

    Gaer
    Click to expand...
    "Not well educated on the subject" might have been a better, more precise way to say it, but I think Ed deserves some benefit of the doubt here... It is a language forum so the only fair assumption is that inquirers want to know how the people who are educated with regard to correct usage would answer. That's not a slur on the rest of us who are learning or improving a language skill (even our own).
     
    navi said:
    Are these sentences correct:

    1-I didn't go out, to study for my exam.
    2-I didn't go out, so that I could take care of my bedridden grandmother.
    3-I didn't go out, for her not to be alone.


    Aren't the commas necessary in these sentences?
    If we take them off, won't the meanings change?

    I didn't go out to study for my exam. I went out to have fun.
    I didn't go out for her not to be alone. I went out because I wanted to. She can take care of herself.
    Click to expand...

    1- With the comma it doesn't make sense, people have given suitable alternatives above
    Without the comma it could work but it would mean something different - "I didn't go out to study for my exam....I stayed in to study for my exam" or the example you give "I went out to have fun".

    2- Fine, and I would say the comma is correct. Without a comma the sentence would strictly mean "I didn't go out so that I could look after my bed-ridden grandmother....I did something else so that I could look after my..."

    3 - Same as 1. With comma you wouldn't say it - see above for alternatives. Without comma the meaning is different "I didn't go out for her not to be alone .... I went out for her to have a bath". (or again your example would work). However the "for her to..." construction is a bit clumsy. "So that she..." is better.
     
    whodunit said:
    Yes, it is. I think that's Gear's problem - he's got the same as I have. Maybe he speaks the text and type it simultanuously.
    Look at these - and vice versa
    know = no
    where = wear
    I've = if (I typed it that way)
    two = to = too
    Click to expand...


    Yes, me too!! I sometimes write the word just the way it is pronounced!! I do the same!! But we know the right words, don't we Who and Gaer?? ;)
     
    whodunit said:
    Yes, it is. I think that's Gear's problem - he's got the same as I have. Maybe he speaks the text and type it simultanuously.
    Look at these - and vice versa
    know = no
    where = wear
    I've = if (I typed it that way)
    two = to = too
    Click to expand...
    Bingo! I type at almost the same speed I talk, and I reverse things like here/hear, not because I don't know the difference, but because my fingers sort of "do their own thing". :)

    Gaer
     
    Hi All;

    I think that all of us that have....shall we say...finger to brain..or..brain to finger problems... should make our own club..:D there seems to be enough of us...
    Thank you all though..I was begining to think I was all alone...sigh...

    te gato;)
     
    Hello there! About commas. I believe they are absolutely important. When we speak we pause to either emphasize or take breath, same when we write.
    , quick pause
    ; a longer more relaxed pause


    Am I right? If not, please correct me.
     
    When reading aloud, it's a good idea to pause when you see a comma and pause for longer when you see a semicolon. However, that doesn't mean that you have to write (or type) a comma or a semicolon every time you'd pause when speaking. This is one of the most common mistakes made by native English speakers.

    In fact, I've come across one writer who always puts a comma after the subject of sentence whenever that subject is a clause rather than a single word. It seems to me that in his reading he has come across this kind of sentence: "The chef, who was French, started work yesterday" and wrongly assumed that the comma is always necessary. So he writes sentences like this: "The US Secretary of State, gave a speech in the House today".

    There are a set of 'rules' that describe when commas and semicolons are used but, of course, they're descriptive, not prescriptive. And Google knows what they are.
     
    Narda said:
    Hello there! About commas. I believe they are absolutely important. When we speak we pause to either emphasize or take breath, same when we write.
    , quick pause
    ; a longer more relaxed pause


    Am I right? If not, please correct me.
    Click to expand...
    Narda, a person who believe in punctuation by sense rather than by rules would agree with you. It has been my experience that most authors tend to agree with you, but I have also stumbed over a sentence now and then when one of the failed to follow a rule that was made for a very good reason.

    But those who follow punctuation rules more closely ("prescriptionists"?) seem to hold much more closely to rules simply because they are rules. And following many rules, I find that a sentence tells me to pause where I would not, or NOT to pause where I would. :)

    Gaer
     
    garryknight said:
    When reading aloud, it's a good idea to pause when you see a comma and pause for longer when you see a semicolon. However, that doesn't mean that you have to write (or type) a comma or a semicolon every time you'd pause when speaking. This is one of the most common mistakes made by native English speakers.

    In fact, I've come across one writer who always puts a comma after the subject of sentence whenever that subject is a clause rather than a single word. It seems to me that in his reading he has come across this kind of sentence: "The chef, who was French, started work yesterday" and wrongly assumed that the comma is always necessary. So he writes sentences like this: "The US Secretary of State, gave a speech in the House today".

    There are a set of 'rules' that describe when commas and semicolons are used but, of course, they're descriptive, not prescriptive. And Google knows what they are.
    Click to expand...

    Google knows everything. <hint of paranoia> :)

    "The US Secretary of State, gave a speech in the House today".

    I have to assume that anyone who writes that way has a VERY strange way of speaking!

    Gaer
     
    Artrella said:
    Yes, me too!! I sometimes write the word just the way it is pronounced!! I do the same!! But we know the right words, don't we Who and Gaer?? ;)
    Click to expand...

    Of course, we know. But where does this influence come from? Any idea? If our fingers are too fast, and nevertheless we type words being as long as the right one, why we choose the wrong?
     
    whodunit said:
    Of course, we know. But where does this influence come from? Any idea? If our fingers are too fast, and nevertheless we type words being as long as the right one, why we choose the wrong?
    Click to expand...
    We are probably all off topic, but it's an interesting question. I feel that I am likely to type any word wrong that has a homonym. I even make up words that don't exist, such as speach. I'm definitely thinking sound and expecting my fingers to supply the "write" word. :)

    For me it's linked to typing speed and the desire to get my thoughts "out of my fingers" as quickly as possible. I prefer to type in Word, because it alerts me when I make typos that form words that do not exist. Now, how do we bring this back to a discussion of commas? Or is it too late?
    icon12.gif
     
    gaer said:
    For me it's linked to typing speed and the desire to get my thoughts "out of my fingers" as quickly as possible. I prefer to type in Word, because it alerts me when I make typos that form words that do not exist. Now, how do we bring this back to a discussion of commas? Or is it too late?
    icon12.gif
    Click to expand...

    And what about the commas? I don't omit them, although I'm typing very fast. Butthe space sbecome illegible s ometime:s I have to proofread to make them be correct.
     
    whodunit said:
    And what about the commas? I don't omit them, although I'm typing very fast. Butthe space sbecome illegible s ometime:s I have to proofread to make them be correct.
    Click to expand...
    Ah, but this would no necessarily be wrong:

    "I don't omit them although I'm typing very fast."

    The reason I say this is that you will find THOUSANDS of short sentences typed that way, by very fine authors. Therefore you have no choice but to come to one of two conclusions:

    1) None of these authors is punctuating correctly.
    2) Commas are often omitted in short sentences, if they don't cause a problem when omitted.

    Since there is no possibility of misreading your sentence without the comma, I would say it is optional. :)

    Gaer

    Gaer
     
    Correctly knowing punctuation rules will get you through the door of a publishing house. Incorrect usage will get a manuscript thrown in the trash before it is even evaluated for its content. Only established authors can afford the luxury of incorrect punctuation!
     
    mjscott said:
    Correctly knowing punctuation rules will get you through the door of a publishing house. Incorrect usage will get a manuscript thrown in the trash before it is even evaluated for its content. Only established authors can afford the luxury of incorrect punctuation!
    Click to expand...
    Agreed, but doesn't that often mean, as always, that MORONS are in charge! :)

    Gaer
     
    mjscott said:
    You got it!
    Click to expand...
    But isn't it ironic? We've all been part of discussions here about self-proclaimed "gurus of the language" who simply made up rules and then have been followed for centuries by other people who assumed their rules were based on more than personal opinion. :)

    Gaer
     
    G'day forum

    I believe that commas often obscure the meaning of a sentence.

    A well constructed sentence should require utterly minimal punctuation
    Click to expand...

    I would suggest that all of the referenced sentences be reconstructed. To my eye in their present construction they are all capable of miscommunication no matter what form of punctuation or word transfer is applied.

    Robert

    Robert
     
    Robert Bennie said:
    G'day forum

    I believe that commas often obscure the meaning of a sentence.



    I would suggest that all of the referenced sentences be reconstructed. To my eye in their present construction they are all capable of miscommunication no matter what form of punctuation or word transfer is applied.

    Robert

    Robert
    Click to expand...
    What do you mean by "all of the referenced sentences"? What did I miss? :)

    Gaer
     
    Robert or should I call you Robert [see below]

    Please offer some examples of sentences with meanings obscured by commas.

    Thank you
    Cuchuflete

    (by omitting the comma after 'Thank you' I have obscured the meaning and made it unclear if I am thanking you or myself:D)

    Robert Bennie said:
    G'day forum

    I believe that commas often obscure the meaning of a sentence.



    I would suggest that all of the referenced sentences be reconstructed. To my eye in their present construction they are all capable of miscommunication no matter what form of punctuation or word transfer is applied.

    Robert

    Robert
    Click to expand...
     
    G'day Cuchuflete

    You are free to call me Robert or Robert at will and I doubt that I will confuse the upper Robert with the lower Robert or even the first Robert with the second Robert and I promise that I will not confuse the correctly entered Robert with the incorrectly entered Robert.

    The most germaine sentences with meanings obscurred by commas are the three sentences referred to in the opening post of this topic.

    Robert or Robert
     
    Hi everybody!
    May you kindly let me know which of the following three sentences is correct?
    1. He hopes to travel around the world and to sail across the Atlantic Ocean.
    2. He hopes to travel around the world, and to sail across the Atlantic Ocean.
    3. He hopes to travel around the world, to sail across the Atlantic Ocean.
    Thank you!
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top