comma with apposition (name): after the architect, Charles Garnier
- Thread starter cheshire
- Start date
I would use a comma there.
Please remember that this is the English Only forum - don't post comments in non-English.
Please remember that this is the English Only forum - don't post comments in non-English.
It is probably not needed if M Garnier was not the architect of the Opera House. Could it be that M Garnier was a patron of the arts and that the building was dedicated to him (possibly after his death)?
at Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect, Charles Garnier. = named after the architect who designed it.
at Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect Charles Garnier. = named after the opera-loving architect, but designed by M Maxiogee!
at Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect, Charles Garnier. = named after the architect who designed it.
at Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect Charles Garnier. = named after the opera-loving architect, but designed by M Maxiogee!
cheshire said:
I think that if it like this: "It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect Charles Garnier."
If it like this, it's not necessary because "the Opera House named after the architect Charles Garnier" is an explanation and you already put the comma after "at the Palais Garnier".
This is my opinion!
I'd also go for the explanation mentioned before: If you want to specify that the Opera was built by Garnier, you should use a comma or write "named after its architect Charles Garnier". If it is not important to specify whether he built the Opera, you can omit the comma.
Xerinola said:
I probably should've kept part of my post.
The way to tell if you need a comma is first to know whether Charles Garnier is the architect of the Opera House or if he is just some architect after whom it was named. Second, rewrite the sentence leaving out "Charles Garnier." If he is the architect of the Opera House, then the sentence should still make sense. If he is not, then the sentence should seem ambiguous. Now put his name back into the sentence. If it made sense without his name, you need a comma; if it made no sense and was ambiguous, you cannot have a comma.
Assuming Charles Garnier built the Opera House:
It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect. [makes sense, even though if you really wanted to leave out his name, you should say, "...after its architect..."; nevertheless, the reader infers that "the architect" is that of the Opera House, and there is only one of him...so NOT ambiguous]
comma neededIt was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect, Charles Garnier.
Assuming Charles Garnier did NOT build the Opera House:
It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect. [what architect? ambiguous! therefore, we canNOT use a comma]
It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect Charles Garnier.
Hope this helps.
Brian
Is this an idiom? What does it mean?
It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect, Charles Garnier.
If I understand your explanation correctly, "the" is used like a demonstrative pronoun rather than a definite article.
Thank you very much, all of you.
From here…
If you want to spend your afternoon shopping at one of the "grand magasins," or department stores, walk north to the Boulevard Haussman to reach Galeries Lafayette and Printemps. For a more cultural activity, take a guided tour of the Opéra de Paris—on Saturdays and Sundays at noon and 3 p.m. in French and at 12:30 p.m. in English. Commissioned under Napoleon III, the Palais Garnier was designed by Charles Garnier, who revolutionized theatergoing rituals by opening the grand entrance hall and vestibules to all patrons, instead of segregating them by social class. Exterior and interior are equally decadent, especially the Chagall ceiling. For a decadent evening, take in a ballet and sip Champagne during intermission on the marbled mezzanine.
In view of this, I would change the sentence in question here to
"It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after its architect, Charles Garnier."
If you want to spend your afternoon shopping at one of the "grand magasins," or department stores, walk north to the Boulevard Haussman to reach Galeries Lafayette and Printemps. For a more cultural activity, take a guided tour of the Opéra de Paris—on Saturdays and Sundays at noon and 3 p.m. in French and at 12:30 p.m. in English. Commissioned under Napoleon III, the Palais Garnier was designed by Charles Garnier, who revolutionized theatergoing rituals by opening the grand entrance hall and vestibules to all patrons, instead of segregating them by social class. Exterior and interior are equally decadent, especially the Chagall ceiling. For a decadent evening, take in a ballet and sip Champagne during intermission on the marbled mezzanine.
In view of this, I would change the sentence in question here to
"It was performed at the Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after its architect, Charles Garnier."
In fact, I'm very much confused reading all your posts.
I reread several grammar textbooks especially on "appositive."
They say you don't use a comma when it's "the restrictive appositive."
If you omit the comma in "It was performed at Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect, Charles Garnier.", doesn't that say that there's only one architect and his name is Charles Garnier?
Please tell me, why is it that what I read in textbooks doesn't seem to coincide with what you explained here?
I reread several grammar textbooks especially on "appositive."
They say you don't use a comma when it's "the restrictive appositive."
If you omit the comma in "It was performed at Palais Garnier, the Opera House named after the architect, Charles Garnier.", doesn't that say that there's only one architect and his name is Charles Garnier?
Please tell me, why is it that what I read in textbooks doesn't seem to coincide with what you explained here?
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
According to this grammatical site, almost all appositives can be treated as "parenthetical elements"--which seems to run counter to "the restrictive appositive" explained in other sites.
Would anyone tell me why it does?
According to this grammatical site, almost all appositives can be treated as "parenthetical elements"--which seems to run counter to "the restrictive appositive" explained in other sites.
Would anyone tell me why it does?
cheshire said:
In my opinion the comma between architect and Charles makes the sentence impossible to reconcile.
To remove the comma causes the sentence to be clearer.
The performance was at the Opera House Palais Garnier so named for Charles Garnier the architect.
Unfortunately there is no direct link between the architect and the Opera House so it is left to conjecture but convention would assume that as M. Garnier was an architect and his profession was mentioned there would be a link of some type.
There are times when all the punctuation in the world will not clarify a cloudy sentence.
.,,
But there is a direct link between the architect, Charles Garnier, and the Operahouse: Charles Garnier designed (hence, was the architect of) the Opera House, as was pointed out by maxiogee in post #11. In light of this, a comma is necessary for the sentence to run logically.. said:
Brian
I quite agree but this additional information is not contained within the sentence.brian8733 said:
.,,
Exactly. Which is why the comma is all-important. The comma, or lack thereof, is the only way of knowing what exactly the intent of the sentence is. We can't, by default, delete the comma due to lack of info; rather, we either say, as was said above, "The presence or lack of a comma affects the sentence by giving it the following two respective meanings..." or find out what additional information is needed, which we did also, and add/delete the comma accordingly (in this case, add). Do you agree?. said:
Brian
I can still see no way to give that sentence lucidity with punctuation. There are simply not enough words for total clarity to be conveyed.
.,,
.,,