Comma in an introductory clause

December 2, 2007 9:07 PM

Do I need the comma in this sentence? "In _Grapes of Europe_, Joe Bloggs reports that grapes are purple." And if so/not, why? I've tried googling adverbial introductory clauses and prepositional introductory clauses, but I can't find a similar example where a work is being introduced.
posted by media_itoku to writing & language (35 comments total)

I don't know the technically correct answer, I'm guessing you do need the comma after Europe, but I doubt anyone's going to be especially upset either way.
posted by Autarky at 9:13 PM on December 2, 2007

I lose all credibility with punctuation like that in my post. How embarrassing.
posted by Autarky at 9:18 PM on December 2, 2007

No. Only if the context of the paragraph has comparison or like seeming conditions that the thought would require a beat in the explanation of the color of the grapes.

In xxx [comma] the grapes are white. Next sentence is another location and color or similar A then B.

Standing alone I do not think the comma creates any natural pause or any need to hestitate.
posted by Freedomboy at 9:18 PM on December 2, 2007

Being a work doesn't have anything to do with it. It is already a natural break when speaking, which a comma also facilitates. The comma would also make sense if the work were instead some other noun, such as Afghanistan or contrast.
posted by Quarter Pincher at 9:21 PM on December 2, 2007

I googled "comma use introductory clause" and got this page from the Online Writing Lab at Perdue, which has resources I used a lot when teaching college writing. Might be helpful. It suggests that a short prepositional phrase doesn't need to be followed by a comma, but your example would look wrong to me without the comma: "In Grapes of Europe Joe Bloggs reports that grapes are purple." If a student came to me with your question, I would suggest erring on the side of using the comma--that a reader who thinks the comma is optional is not likely to be offended or sneering at its presence, but a reader who thinks it's necessary is going to smugly conclude you're illiterate for leaving it off.
posted by not that girl at 9:22 PM on December 2, 2007

It would look very strange to my eye without a comma.
Based on the examples below, my intuitions are: it's optional in examples 1 and 2, though I prefer including it (2). It's required where a proper name comes after the title (so 3 would be wrong, 4 would be right). It's required where a common noun comes after the title (so 5 is wrong and 6 is right).

1. In Hamlet there is a ghost.
2. In Hamlet, there is a ghost.

3. In Hamlet Shakespeare created many memorable characters.
4. In Hamlet, Shakespeare created many memorable characters.

5. In Hamlet critics have found a lot to work with.
6. In Hamlet, critics have found a lot to work with.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:23 PM on December 2, 2007

With or without are both acceptable. As Freedomboy suggests, I would go either way depending on context. On the other hand (contra Freedomboy), reading it standalone impels me to pause after 'Europe', and so I'd put a comma in there, but I am by natural parenthetical as hell.

Being a work doesn't have anything to do with it.

Also true. In 1975 (,) Mr. Flibbertyjib bought his first company for example.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:24 PM on December 2, 2007

No. Only if the context of the paragraph has comparison or like seeming conditions that the thought would require a beat in the explanation of the color of the grapes.

I would use a comma in the sentence in question. Also, the above sentence is unparseable.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:27 PM on December 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

My sense of the strangeness of 3 and 5 above comes, I think, from the fact that two nouns run together. Not having a comma makes it harder to parse the sentence on the fly; I have to hold two possible interpretations in my head longer.

In Hamlet Shakespeare delta tango foxtrot, we have a long list of words.

Not that that is a likely reading, but that's the kind of thing my brain is holding out for when I read the sentence without a comma.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:28 PM on December 2, 2007

Sure feels like the comma is necessary to my ear. The phrase structure is a reversal of the "simple" construction of that concept, i.e. "There is a ghost in 'Hamlet'." The juxtaposition of those clauses seems to want a comma to feel proper, n'est-ce pas?
posted by Aquaman at 9:30 PM on December 2, 2007

My writing teacher said a comma after a prepositional phrase at the beginning of a sentence isn't required, but helps keep people on track with what you are saying if it is four or more words.
posted by Monday at 9:30 PM on December 2, 2007

Quetion was is there a need. Good idea or seems like it should have does not = need.

Structural element versus style I guess.

Either would pass a grammer judge.
posted by Freedomboy at 9:48 PM on December 2, 2007

i don't know enough about grammar to explain why you need it, but to me as a reader, you do need it.
posted by twistofrhyme at 10:09 PM on December 2, 2007

I seem to recall it being a rule that you must use a comma when you have one proper noun being referred to by another, but I'm not sure if it was a formal rule or just a firmly-worded suggestion by some old English teacher of mine.

Glancing through a few style guides seems to confirm this.

@Freedomboy: Just where do you draw the line between 'good idea' and 'need'? There's no official, authoritative reference to American English grammar; when you get right down to it, the whole subject consists of mere suggestions to facilitate mutual intelligibility, which you partake of or ignore at your own risk. I'd argue that you "need" the comma in order to make the sentence easily readable, but obviously it's a subjective criteria. (You could get the point across in LOLCAT or IM-speak; everything else is just making it easy on the reader.)

The line between "correctness" and "style" when you're dealing with formal written English is hazy at best and arbitrary at worst.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:14 PM on December 2, 2007

LobsterMitten, with the list of six examples, is dead-on right. I write history, and for pay have been an academic editor for 20 years (very gnarly old-fashion history books and articles), and his explanation is exactly my own understanding. Follow the gloved lobster!
posted by yazi at 10:19 PM on December 2, 2007

IAACE (copy editor)

In reality, there's no hard and fast rule on commas after introductory dependent clauses. It makes life easier when there are rules, so we create them, but they are actually only guidelines.

First, a note:

"Reading it standalone impels me to pause after 'Europe,' and so I'd put a comma in there."

This is the source of many confusions with commas. Commas are not to help with line readings. They have nothing to do with where pauses should go. Knowing where to pause is a skill of the reader. Knowing how to present text with maximum clarity is the skill of the writer. Too few or too many commas compromise the clarity of the text. Commas and pauses are related, but not causally so.

Now to your question: Yes, you need a comma, primarily because you are abutting two unknown proper nouns. As a clearer example, the sentence

In Mississippi John Hurt's music is the essence of tradition.

is ambiguous. Are we saying that tradition is at the center of the music created by legendary blues musician Mississippi John Hurt? Or are we saying that John Hurt's music is seen as traditional by the people of Mississippi? We don't know. If it's the latter, a comma would go a long way to help clarify. If it's the former, I'd send it back for a rewrite. If it can't be rewritten (for example, if it's a quote), I'd cut the "In."

So to your question, yes, you need a comma. But don't take it as a rule that you need commas after introductory dependent clauses. For example:

In America we exercise the freedom of speech.

"In America" is a dependent clause, but there is no need for a comma because there is no confusion without it.

Make sense?
posted by ochenk at 10:22 PM on December 2, 2007 [4 favorites]

Ochenk, the ambiguity about the two "proper nouns" should be clarified without the comma, because Grapes of Europe is a book title and is either underlined or italicised. This is not the same as in your "Mississippi John Hurt" example.

Having said that, I think the primary question should be if a comma would be incorrect. It would not be, so use one. It reads more clearly with one.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 10:29 PM on December 2, 2007

Commas and pauses are related, but not causally so.

Nowhere did I suggest otherwise.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:29 PM on December 2, 2007

Either would pass a grammer judge.
posted by Freedomboy

Easy peasy getting by those guys.

Use a comma. It is not a clause, because it doesn't contain a subject and predicate. It is an introductory (prepositional) phrase. The reason for the comma has to do with lack of restriction, i.e., the phrase is somewhat parenthetic; it adds a bit of information, but you could remove it and still make sense of the last part:
"Joe Bloggs reports that grapes are purple."

If you can take out part of a sentence without altering the basic sense, you may use a comma or commas to separate that part.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:47 PM on December 2, 2007

Freedomboy writes "Quetion was is there a need. Good idea or seems like it should have does not = need."

Jesus. It's not like there's an actual rule book anywhere. Really, this shit is all ad hoc: that's the great joy of the English language.


You need the comma.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:48 PM on December 2, 2007

ethnomethodologist: ochenk's example is used to show why the guideline to put a comma between proper nouns is required. The general guideline applies even when it isn't required to disambiguate.
posted by ssg at 10:54 PM on December 2, 2007

Either is acceptable.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:13 PM on December 2, 2007

nothing is "needed" except to communicate clearly. The comma version communicates clearly. The other doesn't. I think it's because of the nouns strung together, as a bunch of people said.

Whatever the cause, the "without" version just screams "4th grade book report" to me.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:21 PM on December 2, 2007

Use a comma.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:42 AM on December 3, 2007

I would use a comma in your example sentence, but I would also consider restructuring it to “branch to the right,” starting with the subject and verb, omitting the need for a comma like so:

Joe Bloggs reports in _Grapes of Europe_ that grapes are purple.
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 7:00 AM on December 3, 2007

With or without are both acceptable.

The wonderchicken speaks truth. (IAACE.) This is one of those things that style guides deal with; for instance, the style sheet for a book I just copyedited mandated that commas be used after all such introductory phrases, so if this sentence had occurred in the text, I'd have put a comma in it. There's no right or wrong in this kind of thing, just style.

Really, this shit is all ad hoc

No, really, it's not, but people who never have to deal with writing in a professional capacity are free, of course, to think what they like.
posted by languagehat at 7:05 AM on December 3, 2007

When I was an IAAE (who also did occasional CE), the rule we used was the rule The Atlantic (and probably others) uses: introductory prepositional phrases* with one preposition do not require a comma following; introductory prepositional phrases with two or more prepositions do require a comma.

Whatever you decide, go with it for the rest of the document.

---------------------
*Like weapons-grade pandemonium says, it's a phrase, not a clause.
posted by notyou at 7:15 AM on December 3, 2007

Swings both ways, either is good to go.
posted by londongeezer at 7:21 AM on December 3, 2007

They're both fine; use of the comma is kinder to the reader.
posted by rokusan at 7:30 AM on December 3, 2007

For those of you who think it's optional, here are two sentences with identical introductory phrases:

In the back of the cave, a large rat was chewing on a leaf.

In the back of the cave lived a large rat.

The first is better with the comma; the second is better without. Why the difference? Think of the comma as a perforation in the fabric of the sentence. In the first case, you can tear the sentence at the perforation, throw away the left side, and the piece in your right hand still permits admission to the common sense club. The introductory phrase is a stub. In the second case, you need the phrase to complete the sense, even though "lived a large rat" is technically a sentence.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:38 AM on December 3, 2007

Really, this shit is all ad hoc

No, really, it's not, but people who never have to deal with writing in a professional capacity are free, of course, to think what they like.
posted by languagehat

Time to overhaul your irony meter, languagehat.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:45 AM on December 3, 2007

...and maybe that mandate.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:48 AM on December 3, 2007

Fabulous, thanks y'all. This was a question from someone I'm copyediting, and I had the understanding that a comma was necessary, but he asked me for the terminology to help him understand why.

& thanks for the distinction between phrase and clause in this case!
posted by media_itoku at 8:56 AM on December 3, 2007

ochenk nails it.
posted by malaprohibita at 9:28 AM on December 3, 2007

Time to overhaul your irony meter, languagehat.

Sorry. Not easy to tell irony online, as we all know.
posted by languagehat at 10:57 AM on December 3, 2007