Yeah, there I go again with the commas, but I've lost faith in my proofreader after catching them suggesting the word "afterall." All sources, including my instincts, identify this as wrong, so now I'm apprehensive towards other suggested corrections that go against my instincts. The problem is, all I have is instinct, because I never properly learned the use of a comma. I've tried looking it up, but I also don't know what a subordinate clause is. Maybe I do, but these are things I learned as a kid in Dutch, before Transformers and GI Joe taught me English. So, if you don't mind helping out yet again, here are two random sentences from the story, from which I should apparently remove the commas. And maybe keep the answers at child-levels... The first guard briefly held back, but didn’t believe a word. I heard they were coming, and why do I need to tell you this? So the main problem is with the commas that do or do not go in front of the words but & and. But the proofreader has also been killing off all the Oxford commas, which I understand is a style choice, but I'd still like to double check. There's the regular comma, the soft-pause comma, and the Oxford comma. Quick bonus question: Is this something Grammarly can be relied on? Because I already went through half the manuscript thinking "Well, I guess he knows what he's doing" before I came across the offending "afterall."
I would definitely leave the commas. Otherwise, in the first sentence, it would sound like his not believing a word is contingent on his holding back, rather than the other way around. And in the second sentence no comma would suggest you heard two things (they were coming and why do I need to tell you this?) instead of the final clause of the sentence being a follow-up thought.
I'd kill the comma in the first sentence. and turn the second one into two sentences with a period. Those are different thoughts, one declaratory and one interrogatory: I heard they were coming. Why do I need to tell you this? If you must keep it as one sentence, swap out an "and" or better a "so." The original version is very awkward.
That was indeed my suspicion. It would appear I'm very bad at picking proofreaders. I'll see if I can clear it up, but it's kinda the way Eddie speaks. Especially when he's hyped up.
I guess it's time to quote James Thurber again: As for me, I still agonize whether to use "any more" or "anymore." And I still can't make sense of the usage of the words "shined" or "shone" (I suspect it has to do with whether it's a verb with an object... "He shined the light on the statue..." or not... "The sun shone fitfully that day".) Or dived/doved... Or creeped/crept...
Or go full Cormac McCarthy and never use a comma ever. Or quotation marks. Or semi-colons. Or any of the other "funny little marks" as he put it. For me, I kill every comma that isn't necessary. Often creating new sentences to avoid them. But I'm a short declarative guy.
That's a thing? Sounds more like someone still trying to learn the language. Either way, those are all things one can write around. The placement of punctuation is a matter of ones and zeroes. It either goes somewhere, or it doesn't, and there should be a set of rules somewhere that determines where. And rules mean I should get them as right as possible. The art part of a story already exists in a grey area; that which can be black or white, should be. No, you don't. Lose "for me" and you can kill the comma. That is my escape route, if I can't figure out where to put the punctuator unit. @Xoic already demonstrated why I fret over punctuation. ;o)
The first one shouldn't technically have a comma because it's just a compound action, but you could add one stylistically, which has to do with the context of the first action. He's holding back and so there just feels like there should be a stylistic comma there. The first guard briefly held back, but didn’t believe a word. I believe it falls somewhat under the following, not exactly, but with the same general idea: Prepositions of time have a special relationship with “comma choice.” When you have a sentence with a preposition of time, adding a comma can change the sentence’s entire meaning. These changes can be subtle, but are important. Consider the two pairs of sentences below: PAIR A: We traveled to many countries before we retired. (MEANING: We traveled around the world during a time period before our retirement. We may or may not have continued to travel after retirement.) We traveled to many countries, before we retired. MEANING: The time period where we traveled distinctly contrasts with our years after retirement. We traveled a lot before they retired. But once we retired, that situation likely changed. (The comma creates a sense of pause to emphasize the contrast between two time periods.) There's a good website that talks about these stylistic comma choices. It's where I copied the above info from. Some people don't believe in these soft comma rules though. They're more absolute. I don't belong to that camp. I mean, I look at examples like that traveling the world bit, and it seems obvious that the comma is there or isn't there based on what you're trying to say. So the context is over-riding the grammar rules.
So basically, all the commas the proofreader has removed (and it's damn near all of them) are a style choice and that's why it looks wrong to me. It's not my style. Aside from the mistakes even I can prove are actual mistakes, of course. At least I'm being reinforced in the idea that my instincts are mostly correct. After porn, cat videos, and game walkthroughs, it was only a matter of time before I started using the internet to learn, I guess. ;o) I wish they'd taught school in English, back then. I mean, not even the Dutch speak proper Dutch, but everybody speaks English, and considering the issues I keep having, English would have been the better option. That's how I mostly use my commas. Soft pauses. I put too much information in sentences anyway. Might as well break them up for readability. Anyway, thanks.
Also, this. Why the hyphen? I assume it's a joke my Dutchness prevents me from seeing, but it's actually spelled "override," yes?
Regarding dived/dove No, it's a matter of preference for different segments of the English language. "Dived" is more common in British English, and "dove" in American. There is a parallel in the words strive/strove, and grammarians are undecided which one is preferable. If anybody succeeds in compiling such a rulebook, that would be the first time in the history of the language. English has always been messy, with new usages and coinages spring up everywhere. It defies logic, cherishes quirkiness, and ignores convention. It will put on a tie and tails, but wear Argyle socks when it pleases. Any rulebook compiled today will be obsolete in a year. For me, the rule is clarity. If it makes sense to include a comma for reasons of clarity or pacing, by all means put it in. If the writer wishes to induce a sensation of fast pacing, by all means take it out.
Yay, I said smart things! Ah, now I see it. Your original post has a D behind "dove" which threw me off. I am of the dove-persuasion, in that case. Which I love about any language. But there are parts of a language you can teach to something like Grammarly, and for a computer to know something, there have to be rules. Granted, I'm rechecking my proofer's work with Grammarly, and I'm still not agreeing on all suggestions, but at least it's consistent. And that should really be the end of the discussion.
Commas aside, neither of these sentences work well for me. As written, there would be no comma in the first one, but Louanne is right - it depends on the context. If it were me, I'd rewrite the thing to clarify. The second, as written, would retain the comma, but again, its painful to the reader's eyes. I'd say add quotes to the latter part.
My two cents: The first sentence is okay with or without a comma. However, you could write after the comma "not believing a word" which sounds better to me. It clearly shows why the guard is holding back, but puts the holding back action in the forefront. The second sentence, as worded and with a comma, makes the second part appear to be an afterthought. BTW, I think most Americans would ask the second part and not answer the first part.
That's good then. Eddie is pretending to be the security guard's new boss and going off on a rant, with the question of why he needs to tell him that the Vikings ("they") are coming indeed being sort of an "and also" thing.
