Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (3167)	7/15/1999 8:15:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4711

There are three questions: 1. Is the comma grammatically necessary? 2. Would a comma have been incorrect? 3. Is the comma stylistically preferable? ' My answer to 1: no. My answer to 2: no. My answer to 3: you pays your money and you makes your choice. I think the sentence was perfectly clear as written, and that readers of the level of those on this thread were perfectly capable of keeping track of the thought without needing a comma after the short introductory clause. In fact, IMO a comma would have interrupted the flow of the sentence. So I think it read better without. But that's a stylistic decision. But if any teacher had tried to red pen it as a grammatical error, I would have fought. And won. (P.S. -- in that last sentence, I initially used grammatic. Then thought for a second, then consulted the dictionary as to whether I should be using grammatical. To my surprise, this dictionary doesn't even recognize grammatic as a word. Will have to check the OED when I get home.)

To: jbe who wrote (3167)	7/15/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

"Did you read my posts?" That was what I wondered when you thought I was saying that The Myth of Sisyphus was trivial! <g> I admit that I was in a rush as I read your posts; my husband was requesting the pleasure of my company at the dinner table (for the second time) as I read the posts, and I started scanning for speed. I agree that either way, with or without, would technically be correct. I prefer "with". I also had the average man-on-the-street audience in mind, not the average readers on this thread as was Chris's thought, I now learn. What I found interesting was that you called the "then" redundant. I would not have chosen to say "then" or to write "then", yet it certainly seems to be implied. Was Chris's sentence not an "if and then" statement? (If A, then B.) But why redundant? I'm wondering if you're calling it redundant because it's implied and therefore redundant to actually write it out. But now I'm just guessing. Please enlighten me! :)