But[,] unfortunately, my style sense and grammar beliefs are at odds
May 2, 2019 10:27 PM   Subscribe

Which sentence below do you prefer? Why?
(1) Jim badly needed a shave, but unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
(2) Jim badly needed a shave, but, unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

Sentence (1) reads better to me stylistically (perhaps because the commas occur where I would pause in speech), but (2) accords better with my understanding of parenthetical commas.

I'm aware that there's an option (3) -- strip out the commas on both sides of "unfortunately" -- as well as various ways to obviate the issue by rewriting. By all means suggest these if you think they're the only solutions, but I'm mostly interested in whether I'm off-base in my judgments about (1) and (2), and in reconciling those judgments if possible. Most specifically, I'd be interested in knowing if formal rules exist that license (1).
posted by aws17576 to Writing & Language (48 answers total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
I would choose none of the above:

Jim badly needed a shave, but unfortunately all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
posted by forza at 10:50 PM on May 2, 2019 [89 favorites]


I prefer 1.
posted by TestamentToGrace at 10:54 PM on May 2, 2019


I’d say: “Jim badly needed a shave. Unfortunately all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.”

To me, breaking it into two sentences makes the “punchline” stronger.
posted by The Deej at 10:55 PM on May 2, 2019 [44 favorites]


When in doubt, rewrite the sentence:

* Jim badly needed a shave. Unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

* Jim badly needed a shave; unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

As to the actual comma question, I believe both The New Yorker and The Chicago Manual of Style would back me up with (2). You need the comma before "but" as it is a coordinating conjunction joining two independent clauses creating a compound sentence. You also need the commas before and after "unfortunately" because it is parenthetical.
posted by bryon at 11:02 PM on May 2, 2019 [31 favorites]


All of the examples posted here result in the same syntax tree with this parser tool.

I think commas are useful to communicate the "depth" of the syntax tree at the points they are inserted. Depth is a relative measure and it is difficult to come up with absolute rules. When one comma is not sufficiently distinct from another, we have other tools at our disposal such as parentheses, dashes, and (unfortunately) semicolons.

Jim badly needed a shave, but–unfortunately–all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
posted by Phssthpok at 11:10 PM on May 2, 2019 [4 favorites]


"Jim badly needed a shave but, unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease."

The parenthetical commas serve a purpose. Keep those and dump the ones that are serving a vague sense of "grammatical" propriety. This a stylistic choice, not a grammatical one.
posted by howfar at 11:15 PM on May 2, 2019 [16 favorites]


I'm on team howfar and was coming in to post the "shave but, unfortunately," option. Though I'm also taking a poetry workshop right now, so maybe that's somehow influencing my fancy.

Even under your rationale (1), though, do you actually pause before "but" and immediately pause again before "unfortunately"?
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 11:31 PM on May 2, 2019


(saving throw against edit window abuse)

Whoops, ignore that last part about pauses, I totally misread. Yes, ok, (1) feels more natural pausewise.
posted by cdefgfeadgagfe at 11:34 PM on May 2, 2019


I was taught that if a conjoined sentence has a comma already, you need to move to semicolons:

Jim badly needed a shave; but unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

But subsequently I read way too many British authors and was influenced by British style, which involves far fewer commas (especially with adverbs). So I'd write

Jim badly needed a shave, but unfortunately all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

For me, "unfortunately" is not a striking enough adverb to warrant matching commas, so howfar's variant slows things down too much. I'd use them with something like

Jim badly needed a shave but, if you can believe it, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
posted by zompist at 11:37 PM on May 2, 2019 [2 favorites]


I would use "Jim badly needed a shave, but unfortunately all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease."

Start with the thought that you have two independent sentences - "Jim badly needed a shave" and "Unfortunately all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease."

The use of a coma after unfortunately at the start of the sentence is optional. Therefore, you just need ", but" to serve as a conjunction between the two.

It's a stylistic choice, you'll find examples of all this plus both of yours in various professional writing. If you take the coma to indicate a slight pause, I think mine is closer to how I would say it than either of yours.
posted by Candleman at 11:52 PM on May 2, 2019 [1 favorite]


I'd exclude 'unfortunately'. It can be more impactful to simply state the facts. The reader will instantly realize Jim's unfortunate dilemma.

Jim badly needed a shave. He had only a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
posted by prinado at 1:14 AM on May 3, 2019 [15 favorites]


In speech I'd go for forza's option 3.

In writing I would probably choose 2. (I'm a user of British English if that makes a difference).
posted by Balthamos at 1:38 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


No.2 is horrible, so out of the original options I'd go with no.1. But, I agree with several others that the problem here isn't really the commas. It's the "but unfortunately" that's throwing you off.

If you want to emphasise the paucity of his equipment, I'd go with "Jim badly needed a shave, and all he had was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease." If it's his unshaven state that's the focus, split into two sentences like prinado did.
posted by rd45 at 1:49 AM on May 3, 2019 [4 favorites]


I am also a writing professor and I like 2.
posted by thereader at 1:56 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


But out of all the suggestions I like howfar's the best.
posted by thereader at 1:57 AM on May 3, 2019


Keep those and dump the ones that are serving a vague sense of "grammatical" propriety. This a stylistic choice, not a grammatical one.

Whilst from a comprehension standpoint I agree with this, the "rule" is that commas before "but" are required when joining what could otherwise be two complete sentences. Jim/shave and unfortunately/rusty etc could function as two separate sentences so sticklers would say the comma is required.

Personally, I think a lot of grammar rules are for the birds, and you should go with whatever is clear - and I'm a professional communications manager who has also worked as a journalist.

I also think it demonstrates that adverbs are basically blah unless they're used at the start or end of sentences and then sparingly (boom!).

So for me I would either get rid of "unfortunately" (preference 1), or get rid of "but" and split it into two sentences with "Unfortunately" kicking off the second (preference 2).

Vive le difference!
posted by smoke at 1:59 AM on May 3, 2019 [3 favorites]


The dangling proposition (shave with) is incorrect :)

But to answer your actual question, (1).
posted by sunflower16 at 2:25 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


If I'd just written that in a MeFi comment but didn't feel like thinking about it hard enough to rearrange it I'd just remove the commas entirely.
posted by flabdablet at 4:24 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


my style sense and grammar beliefs are at odds

Every single time this happens, style wins. I doubt you'd find a competent language professional who disagrees.
posted by flabdablet at 4:26 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Unfortunately is functioning as a coordinating/transitional adverb. It needs to be set off by either matched commas if you place it in the middle of a clause or by a single comma if you place it at the beginning of the clause. Version 2 looks ugly not so much because it's got too many commas; it's got too many commas because there are two coordinating terms stacked together that should both be set off with commas--"but" as a coordinating conjunction and "unfortunately" as a coordinating adverb. Eliminating one results in a much better sentence.
posted by drlith at 4:27 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]


Use either but in one sentence, or unfortunately in two. Using both is awkward and unnecessary.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:56 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]


2 is correct. 1 is not. The conjunction and the adverbial phrase (even though it is only one word) both need commas.

Prescriptivism 4evar!
posted by thelonius at 5:15 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


Use either but in one sentence, or unfortunately in two. Using both is awkward and unnecessary.

Suppose you used only "unfortunately", and did not split this into two sentences. You'd need a semicolon, right?

(3) Jim badly needed a shave; unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

The commas around "but" are performing the same work as the semicolon.
posted by thelonius at 5:18 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


I would type it out as sentence 2, edit it to be sentence 1 and feel annoyed, and edit again and end up with:

Jim badly needed a proper shave; unfortunately, all he had was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
posted by sockermom at 6:07 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


I’d write the first in informal settings (like social media, emailing a friend, etc.), but would use the second in formal contexts like work reports.
posted by snowmentality at 6:11 AM on May 3, 2019


Professional copy editor here. While 2 is correct in that it includes all punctuation deemed necessary, 1 is acceptable. Using all punctuation is actually a style that is not always followed and does not have to be. From the Chicago Manual of Style:

“The tendency to use all the punctuation that the grammatical structure of the material suggests is referred to as close punctuation. It is a practice that was more common in the past, and though it may be helpful when the writing is elaborate, it can, when misused, produce an uninviting choppiness. There is a tendency today, on the other hand, to punctuate only when necessary to prevent misreading. Most contemporary writers and editors lean toward this open style of punctuation, yet preserve a measure of subjectivity and discretion.”

Personally, I would use 1 because it’s correct and looks cleaner. If I were permitted to change wording, I’d delete “unfortunately.” It’s obvious that it’s unfortunate. I’d keep it as one sentence and retain “but” because it’s not otherwise clear he would use those things to shave.

BTW, I’m a “competent language professional” who would not say that style always wins when style and grammar are at odds. Not every type of writing has to be grammatically correct, but some types really do. And I’ve run into plenty of authors who are in love with their own style and are thus blind to how awful it really is. And when I was teaching college writing, there were students who used their supposed style as an excuse for not wanting to bother to learn grammar. The “style” in these cases was almost universally terrible.
posted by FencingGal at 6:22 AM on May 3, 2019 [14 favorites]


Two sentences!

Jim badly needed a shave. Unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

That said, 2 is grammatically correct. 1 is not. Both are a little unwieldy; the solution is shorter sentences.
posted by amtho at 6:24 AM on May 3, 2019 [5 favorites]


It's remarkable how much writing trouble comes from the notion that it just won't do to end a sentence and begin a new one.
posted by thelonius at 6:26 AM on May 3, 2019 [7 favorites]


This 'but unfortunately,' looks unprofessional and amateurish to me. Just my opinion.
posted by amtho at 6:32 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


I'm with FencingGal.
posted by mochapickle at 6:41 AM on May 3, 2019


Also: Context and audience can play a big part in these choices.

I once read a suspense novel that had been rigorously edited to match style 2. Paragraphs upon paragraphs of agonizingly technically correct comma usage totally sank the pace of the story and made it into a total slog.
posted by mochapickle at 6:56 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


One more point. Punctuation and grammar are two different things. The grammar in this sentence is fine. The question is about punctuation.
posted by FencingGal at 7:19 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


Writing teacher on team semicolon, here.
posted by desuetude at 7:30 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


My feeling about #1 is if you don't have a comma before "unfortunately" you don't get to put one after, no matter how much you might feel it needs to be there. My feeling about #2 is it's fine except that line of three commas feels like a set of obstacles meant to trip you up as you read. Neither should go to print but I honestly think the same sentence with no commas at all would be OK in a pinch. It reads better than either of your options, and without any real potential to confuse the reader.

The real problem, as others have noted, is the clunky phrasing that suggests a need for the three-comma conga line: "but unfortunately." Luckily for you, "unfortunately" is redundant here; if you take that word out, two commas disappear along with it.

Jim badly needed a shave, but all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

^^ Nothing wrong with that sentence. I gave the second use of the word "shave" a quick sideways glance, but it's defensible depending on what you're going for.
posted by Mothlight at 8:16 AM on May 3, 2019


I haven't seen anyone pipe in with this yet:

In speech, I'd naturally verbalize option two:. . . badly needed a shave, < slight pause > but, < slight pause > unfortunately, < slight pause > all he had . . .

In my mind this appropriately emphasizes "unfortunately" which is, I take it, the whole point of including that adverb. If you don't want to emphasize it, then it's both syntactically and semantically unnecessary.
posted by oddman at 8:21 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


I write way too many parenthetical expressions*, and I have gotten used to editing them all out. If a sentence looks like it has too many commas you're probably trying to do too many things at once in that sentence, and instead of trying to remove just the commas you should be removing the things that make them necessary. In this case your options are to get rid of the 'unfortunately' ("needed a shave, but all he could find") or to get rid of the 'but' and use two sentences ("needed a shave. Unfortunately, all he could find"). What may be tripping you up is that you're thinking that 'but unfortunately' is one unit, but it's really two, namely, a conjunction and a parenthetical adverb. You can't really force them into one unit the way you want.

I'd also say that a two sentence structure lands the joke better, but it depends on if you're trying to write this as a joke at all. If you don't intend for this to be a joke, then you want one sentence with no 'unfortunately' and the 'but' replaced with an 'and.' If you're playing it for laughs, the two sentence structure is how a nightly talk show host would deliver the joke in an opening monologue.

* I remember being thrilled by Salinger's sentences the first time I read them. "She was wearing her usual at-home vesture—what her son Buddy (who was a writer, and consequently, as Kafka, no less, has told us, not a nice man) called her pre-notification-of-death uniform." Are you Salinger? Then you might be able to get away with that many commas—and an em-dash!—in one sentence. A lot of Salinger now strikes me as stunt writing.
posted by fedward at 8:25 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


I think it really depends on context/voice, and on how you would maybe read it aloud.

For instance, if Jim desperately needed a shave (late for job important interview, etc.), and the tin can/bacon grease situation was the result of previous stupid actions by someone else in the story, then maybe you would want to emphasize the 'unfortunately' with commas, hyphens, etc.

Or, Jim could be waking up with a hangover and nothing to do, and is happy to slob around unshaven for a while, in which case you might not emphasize the 'unfortunately' so much.
posted by carter at 8:57 AM on May 3, 2019


[W]e have other tools at our disposal such as... (unfortunately) semicolons. (Emphasis mine.)

You take that back; they're essential!
posted by carmicha at 9:06 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Team #2 with a gun pointed at my head, but I'm definitely on team rewrite.
posted by emelenjr at 9:20 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


Former professional copywriter here. My sense for parenthetical commas is really strong, so I parse #2 way more comfortably than #1.

My brain is annoyingly strict about commas even when my social sense knows it's not that important.
posted by itesser at 9:39 AM on May 3, 2019 [1 favorite]


I know that writing teachers advocate leaving out adverbs. I don't agree with that, unless the adverbs really don't give new information. Here, the adverb does give new information: how the focal character feels about the situation. More and more, now, that needs to be re-emphasized.
posted by amtho at 10:35 AM on May 3, 2019


Yeah, two sentences.

Jim badly needed a shave. Unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.

Obviously followed by:

That's funny. Jim never shaves with a rusty tin can and bacon grease at home.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:28 AM on May 3, 2019 [2 favorites]


Jim badly needed a shave. Unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease.
posted by TrishaU at 11:29 AM on May 3, 2019


I prefer both if you eliminate the word "but" entirely. "Unfortunately" already does the job "but" would do.
posted by GoblinHoney at 3:23 PM on May 3, 2019


I have tried, but am unable to imagine being genuinely puzzled or mystified by “unfortunately”. It seems clearly suboptimal to shave with a can lid and bacon grease; I suppose that’s what you mean by the adverb adding no new information. But it is no more unclear to me than, say, the identity of the narrator, how they got their knowledge , and their purpose in telling me of these shaving misfortunes.
posted by thelonius at 5:13 PM on May 3, 2019


I think that's right, spitbull. For example I can imagine it in a Lemony Snicket story: "...but, unfortunately, all he could find to shave with was a rusty tin can and some bacon grease. It was unfortunate not only for Jim, whose job interview with the First National Bank went very poorly, but also for the Baudelaires..." or whatever.

Questioner, anyone telling you that "unfortunately" is absolutely unnecessary or definitely wrong without knowing the context of the sentence and what it is trying to achieve is, in my view, almost certainly overreaching.
posted by howfar at 3:59 AM on May 4, 2019


FencingGal and spitbull win the Internet today. The word “unfortunately” is redundant.
posted by doctor tough love at 3:37 PM on May 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


I'm also on team "get rid of 'unfortunately' and/or make it two sentences."

Of course if you're trying to be funny:
"Jim badly needed a shave. Luckily, he had brought his trusty tin can lid and bacon grease."
posted by aspersioncast at 6:22 PM on May 4, 2019


« Older Buying or building a good light table for stained...   |   Best practices for taking Doxycycline Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.