Since I didn't think I was organizing a multi-part discussion of commas, my last entry did not start as Part 1, but you may consider it the first part.
The first thing you can start with is noticing how I used commas in the above sentence. The first part of the sentence is an introductory clause that is separated from the next part of the sentence by a comma. What does the comma do here? It indicates a slight pause. A period is, as the British say, a full stop, so if you're reading something aloud you can take a breath when you come to a period. But a comma is just a hesitation, barely a heartbeat in length. In the above sentence, it merely separates the other two clauses in the sentence from the introductory clause, which means that it is more of an aside, an additional thought I wanted to use to introduce you to my main topic.
The guts of the sentence come in the second clause, which is independent, meaning it can stand alone and still be understood because it contains all the elements of a complete sentence: subject (my last entry), verb (did not start), and predicate (as Part 1). Now I grant you, this is a loose interpretation, since "start" is the verb; however, without the modifiers (did not), it would not make sense in the context of the entire sentence. Then I added another independent clause and separated it from the first one with a comma and a conjunction. Sometimes you can leave out the comma, since with a conjunction it isn't always necessary. I made the judgment that I wanted to use the comma because I wanted the little pause.
I could also have used a semicolon and dropped the conjunction, but frankly I feel the change would have been too abrupt. A semicolon in this case would be almost the same as a period, and if you think about it, you see that the clauses rely on each other for sense. Very often, in choosing one punctuation mark over another, you must decide on the inner meaning or workings of your sentence, which you learn through repetition and writing many sentences many times. One of the reasons creative writing teachers often suggest that their students keep journals is so that they get used to thinking as writers, becoming a bit more self-conscious about the ways they present their ideas. (I find the technique enormously helpful and have been keeping journals for thirty-seven years.)
So, commas can be used to separate clauses in a sentence as well as items in a series. In a future entry, I will discuss some of the kinds of clauses that seem to give writers the most grief. But for now, I wanted to concentrate on commas used to separate clauses.
In general, it's best to use commas to separate a series of brief clauses rather than a mixture of long and short clauses. Too many clauses and the reader loses track of what's going on in the sentence, and the sentence itself becomes a run-on sentence and a big no-no in writing. (I omit James Joyce and William Faulkner from this discussion intentionally.)
I have a bias, and I must admit to it upfront: I favor a direct style. You say what you mean and mean what you say. This doesn't mean I don't write long, involved narratives. Obviously I do, because I like to be thorough. But my sentences are carefully considered and I try to pay attention to the "rules" when I write, even if I choose to break them sometimes.
My choice of writing style differs inherently from the preferred academic style, which uses far too many instances of the passive voice (as in an idea expressed this way: "It was observed that Eve ate the apple the Serpent offered her." Who did the observing? What or who is "It"?). Using the passive voice implies an unwillingness to take responsibility for the things the writer is saying, and this sentence falls right into that category of obfuscation. Anytime you hear a public speaker lapse into passive constructions, you'll know that he/she doesn't really believe or wish to take responsibility for what he/she is saying. It's just bad writing, in my opinionated opinion.
If you are constructing your resume, never use the passive voice and never appear to obfuscate. You are selling yourself and your accomplishments, so you say "I improved sales in my division by 25 percent during my first six months with the company." Not "Sales improved in my division by 25 percent during my first six months with the company." You may mean that you improved sales, but the sentence implies they improved by themselves, without any effort on your part. The sentence may not be strictly in the passive voice, but the ultimate outcome is that you are not taking responsibility for something you did, which would go against you when someone reads your resume. It appears that you might be taking credit for something you did not do.
You should use commas to separate a series of brief clauses, such as: "I packed for a trip to California, taking my camera and camera bag, carrying a backpack and a book, and dragging my suitcase behind me." Each clause contains more than one item, yet they all work with the comma because in each case, the names of the items have a relationship with one another. Also each clause is introduced by a verb.
In my next comma discussion, I'll also have to describe some functions of the semicolon, since there are many kinds of series, and commas can only be used for simple ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment