I worked with many people on the ACC project, directed..

charlies1902

Banned
English - American
"I worked with many people on the ACC project directed by Pinlare Monte and acquired many skills."
I am having some trouble figuring out whether or not to put commas in a sentence I wrote. I believe there should be commas in that sentence so it would look like this - "I worked with many people on the ACC project, directed by Pinlare Monte, and acquired many skills."

What do you guys think?
 
  • JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    They differ in being restrictive and non-restrictive, respectively. The first describes one of several ACC projects, restricting it to the one directed by PM. The second tells us that the (only) ACC project is the what you worked on, and, by the way, it was directed by PM. You can search for restrictive and non-restrictive to find more information on them
     

    charlies1902

    Banned
    English - American
    They differ in being restrictive and non-restrictive, respectively. The first describes one of several ACC projects, restricting it to the one directed by PM. The second tells us that the (only) ACC project is the what you worked on, and, by the way, it was directed by PM. You can search for restrictive and non-restrictive to find more information on them
    I believe this is non-restrictive. It is the only ACC project and is directed by PM. I believe from google searching that commas are necessary.

    Is "I worked with many people on the ACC project, directed by Pinlare Monte, and acquired many skills" correct?
     

    wandle

    Senior Member
    English - British
    What is your main point? Is it that the project was directed by PM, or that you were under his direction?

    If the latter, you could say 'I worked under PM's direction on the ACC project'.
     

    Parla

    Member Emeritus
    English - US
    I think that both commas are unnecessary. But if you decide to omit the first comma and use the second, then you'll need to add "I" before "acquired".
     

    Parla

    Member Emeritus
    English - US
    Is this a confusing structure? I worked with many people on the ACC project directed by Pinlare Monte, and acquired many skills.
    No, it's not confusing. But it's wrong. The problem is that the "directed by" is no longer a clause—whether restrictive (without commas) or nonrestrictive (with both commas)—plunked in the middle of a sentence. It has become restrictive (as Julian points out in post #5), and the single comma following it turns the "and" part of the sentence into an independent clause with no subject. Hence "I" is needed before "acquired".
     

    gramman

    Senior Member
    Hmm. My first thought is, "If it's not confusing, how did it come to be considered wrong?" I realize that may be difficult to answer.

    So this is improper:
    I shoveled the now blocking the driveway, and then moved on to other chores.
    in that an I is required in front of moved.

    Okay, I looked around and found this:
    Note: DO NOT use a comma if there is not a new subject after the word that links the two parts of your sentence. — English Composition 1 (ouch! :eek: ), from Illinois Valley Community College
    So the bottom line is that I must sacrifice my goal of leading the reader to pause before moving on to the second clause because … ahh, … there's some rule about a need to repeat the subject, even though, as you seem to agree, there is arguably no confusion present.

    The OP's sentence seems a lot better to me with a comma in front of and. I'm very disheartened to learn that I'm dead wrong about this. :( I'm not blaming you, Parla; you're just the messenger. But I hope whoever is responsible for this calamity realizes how personally devastating it is to me.

    Sorry to ramble on (too much Nemo), but I've now pulled myself together. I just need to remember to repeat the subject. I can live with that. :solaced_smilie:
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top