Ad
related to: comma after introductory so bad- Free Sentence Checker
Free online proofreading tool.
Find and fix errors quickly.
- Free Spell Checker
Improve your spelling in seconds.
Avoid simple spelling errors.
- Grammarly for Mac
Get writing suggestions across an
array of desktop apps and websites.
- Do Your Best Work
A writing assistant built for work.
Make excellent writing effortless.
- Free Sentence Checker
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
"A comma goes before 'and' or 'or' in a series of three or more: Sn, K, Na, and Li lines are invisible." Plain English Handbook, Revised Edition (McCormick-Mathers Publishing Co., 1959), § 483, p. 78 "Use commas to separate the items in a series of words, phrases, or short clauses: The farmer sold corn, hay, oats, potatoes, and wheat."
Some people use the Oxford comma (also known as the Harvard or serial comma). This is a comma before "and" or "or" at the end of a series, regardless of whether it is needed for clarification purposes. For example: X, Y, and Z (with an Oxford comma) X, Y and Z (without an Oxford comma)
All about the Oxford comma, including when it may or may not be necessary.
The comma-free approach is often used with partial quotations: The report observed "a 45% reduction in transmission rate". A comma is required when it would be present in the same construction if none of the material were a quotation: In Margaret Mead's view, "we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities" to enrich our culture.
This sentence is a bit different; however, a comma is necessary as well. Using commas to offset certain adverbs is optional, including then, so, yet, instead, and too (meaning also). So, that's it for this rule. or; So that's it for this rule. A comma would be appropriate in this sentence, too. or; A comma would be appropriate in this sentence too.
It's in the subsection on the serial comma, but all of it also applies to commas for introductory phrases – especially on WP, where the individual writer has no control over later editorial changes that may be confusing: Given that [this] comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate ...
But at least it doesn't include the odd example; the revert of sroc's third edit was primarily motivated by the bad example. Here, I would interprent the 2011 as not being followed by other punctuation, since the following parenthetical goes with the day, not with the year; it comes after the closing comma, not before. Yes, some interpretation ...
Many commas are grammatically required, and many that aren't are stylistically preferred in formal writing. Furthermore, some low- register uses of commas are incorrect. Insertion or removal of a single comma can often totally change the meaning of a sentence, while in other cases having virtually no effect at all.
Ad
related to: comma after introductory so bad