Grammar question....

[MalcolmJID]

What do you actually use?

 

[bousozoku]

They are difficult to catch at times.

You can't catch flies. You have to draw them.

The sentence with the comma is more correct.

 

[elfin buddy]

Just to echo a few people here, definitely use the second one. The reason, I think, is that "Fifty years ago" is a dependent clause here (i.e., makes little sense without the rest of the sentence to put it in perspective). Dependent clauses are always separated from the rest of the sentence with a comma.

That, and it just looks and reads better

 

[Boggle]

I'll take option 2, iGary.

Yeah, I'm w/ the majority on this one. It makes the structure come across more conversational. Seeing as the artlicle is either biographical or about fly-fishing I'd assume you'd want to set a relaxed tone to the piece from the beginning.

Anywho...I like it w/ the comma. Though if you want to read a great book where powerful literary figures get into raucous arguments and vendettas over comma usage, you should read Letters From The Editor. You'll laugh, that I can promise.

Boggle.

 

[count chocula]

option 2 looked and sounded better to me.

 

[aquajet]

"Fifty years ago" is an introductory clause and it makes sense to add a comma to separate it from the following independent clause also if you speak the entire sentence aloud do you find yourself speaking with a natural pause between the two because if yes then most likely there should be a comma but that doesn't necessarily mean a comma is necessary just because there's a pause does this make sense?

 

[clayj]

Clayj the Grammar Policeman says that the second sentence is more correct.

 

[Verto]

Having a "debate" with an editor of mine.

Would you write this sentence like this:


Or like this:

Fifty years ago, Joe Bruce was a youngster hiding behind a patch of cattails, chugging a plug across a pond on his grandmother's farm.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'd go with the comma. What does the editor say?

Not that editors are always right. I've had editors foul up my writing something awful.

 

[emw]

So how is it that ~Shard~ hasn't weighed in on a grammar question?

Fifty years ago, Joe Bruce was a youngster hiding behind a patch of cattails while chugging a plug across a pond on his grandmother's farm.

Me? I'd rewrite it like this:

Fifty years ago, before he had better things to do like play on an X-Box, Joe Bruce was a young punk playing hooky from school. While avoiding the warrant officers, he'd often hide out on his grandmother's farm and smoke pot. In order to satisfy his growing hunger, he's chug a few plugs across the pond in an attempt to dredge up a catfish or two to filet for a snack.

 

[beatsme]

Having a "debate" with an editor of mine.

how about this:

Fifty years ago Joe Bruce was a youngster, hiding behind a patch of cattails while chugging a plug across a pond on his grandmother's farm.


is "chugging" a colloquialism where you are? It means "throwing," right? I ask because here we would refer to that as "chucking."

 

[pianoman]

i would write it the second way because putting the comma there indicates that the sentence would read just fine if the comma'd portion was removed (the "fifty years ago" part). so, if the sentence were written without that, it would still make sense. in the first version, the lack of a comma indicates that the "fifty years ago" intro is necessary to keep the sentence coherent (which, it is not).

 

[~Shard~]

i would write it the second way because putting the comma there indicates that the sentence would read just fine if the comma'd portion was removed (the "fifty years ago" part). so, if the sentence were written without that, it would still make sense. in the first version, the lack of a comma indicates that the "fifty years ago" intro is necessary to keep the sentence coherent (which, it is not).

Do you see the irony in commenting on proper comma use in a sentence with a post that itself misuses commas? That was brilliant, thanks!

Oh, and sentences begin with captial letters as well. You kind of forgot that one.

just, thought, you'd, like, too, no;

 

[Sharewaredemon]

just, thought, you'd, like, too, no;

Oh god that hurt to read.

 

[2nyRiggz]

Indeed, the second one is the one you want...the grammar nazi on patrol.



Bless

 

[steamboat26]

my english teacher last year (who officially knows everything about books, grammar, and just about anything) says that it depends on how you say it. Some people might use the comma, some might not; it can be done either way.

 

[~Shard~]

Indeed, the second one is the one you want...the grammar nazi on patrol.

Yep, that's me...

 

[Jaffa Cake]

...it depends on how you say it. Some people might use the comma, some might not; it can be done either way.

I'd go along with that. I tend to put a comma in a sentence where I'd pause if I saying it aloud.

It might not always be grammatically correct, but it keeps me happy.

 

[iGary]

Yep, that's me...

Coming from the guy who doesn't know how to properly use commas in a list. Remember that post?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Grandma Nazi?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Why doesn't this bloody image link work...

 

[xsedrinam]

Comma? Yes. "Chugging"? How about "skimming"?

 

[aquajet]

Do you see the irony in commenting on proper comma use in a sentence with a post that itself misuses commas?

"Usage" is more appropriate.

Usage means 'manner of use, practice,' while use means 'the act of employing.' In discussions of writing, usage is the term for normal or prescribed practice:: standard usage calls for a plural. In describing particular examples, however, employ use: | the use of the plural with this noun is incorrect.

Why doesn't this bloody image link work..

And of course, a gas oven would only be appropriate...

 

[~Shard~]

Coming from the guy who doesn't know how to properly use commas in a list. Remember that post?

Unless you can provide a link to it, no I don't.

Plus, that was a test.

"Usage" is more appropriate.

Nice one!

 

[gallagb]

yes, you use the coma.