Is a comma required before “with” below? And if so, is a comma always required before “with” in similar constructions? What is the grammatical reason for this? When are there exceptions for not using a comma before “with”? The event may not take place until March 17, but the competitors are already champing at the bit, with the Hall of Fame inductions and many other specialized events to take place. Thank you.
It doesn't need one. It can be confusing, when do you need a comma between clauses and when do you not need one? In that case it is a dependent clause. Notice the comma in the above sentence. I could have also used a colon. You can find a review of the rules here: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp
You're using with as a parenthetical expression. It's like an afterthought. Sometimes it's an interrupting thought. They get set off with commas. Em-dashes can also come into play. The kid, with casual aplomb, threw a dagger at me. The commas don't have to be there. It depends on how you read the sentence. It makes a different kind of sense without them. If the thought is interrupting (parenthetical) then it gets the commas. I think your ear is picking up on the repetition of "take place" and is trying to separate it. Try this contruction. Short/long/main-action. The event's not until March 17, but with the Hall of Fame inductions and many other specialized events taking place, the competitors are already champing at the bit. The point is that you shove the modifiers up front and then finish the sentence on the action. (Then reword the first "event," to kill that rep. I think the line will hold then.)
Excellent explanation, Seven Crowns. Thank you. I thought that comma before with was supposed to be there.
The reason your example differs is that it is an adverbial clause followed by the action it modifies. The OP example isn't the same. Here you changed the sentence around, same issue, it is not analogous. A parenthetical expression is a phrase or clause that’s inserted within—in effect, it interrupts—another phrase or clause. In the OP case it does not interrupt anything. In the OP example a dependent clause follows 'with' in which no comma is needed. https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/punctuation-marks/commas-and-clauses I'm willing to be proven wrong, cite a source and give the part of speech the correct label because it is not a parenthetical expression or an adverbial clause.
It wasn't meant to be a duplicate, and it's not a clause. It's a parenthetical phrase acting as an adverb. I agree with the adverb part. It was just meant to be an easy example of a parenthetical. There are two ways to break the original line apart. "With . . ." is either a long preposition which doesn't need a comma, or it's a parenthetical which does need one. There are two correct readings. The punctuation will actually decide. The comma says it's a parenthetical. Maybe it would work better without it. It's possible. I'm just reading it as it's on the page. And that "with . . ." ending was definitely not a clause. It's a phrase: "with NP and NP." A clause has to have a verb. I suppose "with . . . to take place" has an infinitive in it, but that's not a verb anymore. In that phrase, it is functionally an adjective. A parenthetical doesn't have to be an interruption. That's just one particular kind of parenthetical. A parenthetical can come at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence. Here's a fairly good listing with parentheticals at all positions doing every task (copied from random site): These are the 8 types of parenthetical phrases Introductory phrase: Many years ago, Andrew’s brother told him the worst ghost story he’d ever heard. Interjection: Well, you could at least try to have fun. Oooo, I don’t think so. Wait, tell me about your trip. Aside: There are more than 800,000 known species of insects living in the world, in case you didn’t know. By the way, you never told me that. Appositive: Dr. Phillip K. Aston, a researcher at Miami University, has discovered a cure for cancer. When I was done with it, I gave the movie script to Hans, my friend who works for Universal Studios. Absolute phrase: The shooting victim, his eyes rolled completely back into his head, was clearly dead. I found your grandfather running down Market Street carrying fish, cats chasing him and meowing the whole way. Free modifier: Realizing they were broke, Mario and Elizabeth ended their vacation and returned home. Resumptive modifier: February’s nasty winter weather culminated in a ferocious snowstorm, a snowstorm that would be remembered many years later. Summative modifier: When we told her the news, Andrea went into a blind rage, something she had never done before and hasn’t done since.
I agree. if you removed the commas, you'd have "The kid with casual aplomb threw a dagger at me." It sound like there was a second kid there who didn't have casual aplomb, and who left her dagger in its sheath.
This again is a different example and I'm not sure what you mean about sounding like another kid is there. It's clear in this sentence that the comma changes the sentence: "The kid with casual aplomb threw a dagger at me."No comma and "with casual aplomb" is a adjectival clause modifying "The kid", while with the comma (actually two of them are needed) it is an adverbial clause modifying the verb, "threw". It's an awkward sentence but that's beside the point. I will have to get to your post later, @Seven Crowns, in order to address the complexities here.
I agree that it depends what the sentence actually means. Are the competitors impatient because the inductions are happening, or is it just another piece of information? Like, to simplify the sentence without changing parts: The event is in March but the competitors are already impatient because the events are going to be exciting. The event is in March but the competitors are already impatient with all the delays. The event is in March but the competitors are already impatient and there's lots of other stuff going on as well. It's kind of a weird sentence, without context.
