comma with 'which' [meaning?, relative adverb]: Revolution, which

wathavy

Senior Member
Japanese
Hi.
I am simply upset about the "," because they say this has a great impact on the following sentence, which I believe not.
Any opinion?

One dramatic example is the Industrial Revolution, which would surely have been impossible without the development of science.
One dramatic example is the Industrial Revolution which would surely have been impossible without the development of science.
I have no sense of reacting on the difference at the ",".
Am I damned?

Thank you.
 
  • Alirhotic

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    I thought wrong, majlo. I had to read again to understand better. I clearly could see the sentence was incomplete, but it wasn't. That's why I edited. =)
     

    Packard

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    I decide on many commas by how I read it aloud. Do I pause at a point in the sentence? There I add a comma.

    In this case I would leave out the comma.
     

    mtmjr

    Senior Member
    English (US)
    Well first off, an English speaker would understand the second sentence to mean the same as the first, however they will note that it seems a bit off.

    The difference is that in the first sentence (with the comma), the "which..." phrase describes one, specific Industrial Revolution...THE Industrial Revolution.

    In the second sentence (no comma), it can be read that of all the Industrial Revolutions that have occurred, "the industrial revolution which would not have been possible without science" is a dramatic example. (Granted I don't really know what it is exemplifying...)

    I hope this helps...if you need further clarification, please ask!
     
    But in some cases (for example, relative clauses) one cannot simply base his decision about putting a comma on reading a sentence aloud. I mean, it's not always reliable as you might read it without a pause while a comma is actually required there.
     

    Packard

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    But in some cases (for example, relative clauses) one cannot simply base his decision about putting a comma on reading a sentence aloud. I mean, it's not always reliable as you might read it without a pause while a comma is actually required there.
    Yes, there are many situations that absolutely require a comma. But often a comma is there just to facilitate the reading of the sentence. In that case I go by how is sounds.

    Often times I get "comma-happy" and I have to go back and delete a bunch of commas or the sentences get a bit choppy.
     

    wathavy

    Senior Member
    Japanese
    Well first off, an English speaker would understand the second sentence to mean the same as the first, however they will note that it seems a bit off.

    The difference is that in the first sentence (with the comma), the "which..." phrase describes one, specific Industrial Revolution...THE Industrial Revolution.

    In the second sentence (no comma), it can be read that of all the Industrial Revolutions that have occurred, "the industrial revolution which would not have been possible without science" is a dramatic example. (Granted I don't really know what it is exemplifying...)

    I hope this helps...if you need further clarification, please ask!
    Thank you for your answers for all.
    Actually, the above quotation are one of the explanation done by a Japanese specialist, and I am surprised at the fact that there are exactly same kind here as well.

    Now, I need to find my way to understand why "," the comma will make this difference.

    The comma just kicked my a__.
    Thank you. :D
     

    pepoling

    New Member
    USA, English
    That sentence is way too long to not pause naturally. Why not pause before the subordinate clause beginning with "which"? In addition to being gramatically required, the pause is natural there too.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top