comma btw subject and verb: Children whose parents are..., copy this

[luitzen]

I've come to a disagreement with word (word puts a green line below my sentence), but I think word is wrong.

According to word, the sentence "Children whose parents are alcoholics, copy this behaviour from their parents." should be: "Children, whose parents are alcoholics, copy this behaviour from their parents." (word suggests a comma after "Children").

I think the comma shouldn't be there. Without the comma I'm specifically referring to children whose parents are alcoholics. When I use the comma, however, the sentence, incidentally, becomes to mean that all children have alcoholic parents (which obviously isn't true). Or is that prevented by the word "whose"?

 

[Einstein]

I agree; there should be either two commas, for a non-defining relative clause, or no commas for a defining relative clause. It's a common mistake to follow a long subject - "children whose parents are alcoholics" - with a comma as a kind of pause for breath, but personally I can breathe without seeing a comma.
In general I wouldn't put a comma between subject and verb.

 

[luitzen]

Thanks. The problem was not a lacking comma, but an additional comma. I think I made this mistake because in Dutch relative clauses always end with a comma while non-restrictive relative clauses start with a comma and restrictive relative clauses don't. I don't think I'll make this mistake again.

 

[velisarius]

"Children, whose parents are alcoholics," tells me that children always have alcoholic parents. I don't see any reason to separate the subject of the sentence from its verb with one comma either. I wouldn't use any commas there.