Speaking of commas, they are also generally used with nonrestrictive
relative clauses:

1. The car that is blue is an eyesore. (restrictive: the color is used to
identify which of several cars is being referred to)
2. The car, which is blue, is eyesore. (nonrestrictive: speaker and hearer
are both aware of which car is being referred to; the color may be the
reason the car is an eyesore but is not being used to identify the car in
question)

Although some style manuals stipulate that "which" be used only for
nonrestrictives, that prescription is not always followed, so commas for
nonrestrictives supply a useful reading clue.

Dick



On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Notice the difference between
>
>
> 1. The big blue car
>
> 2. The tall, massively muscled wrestler
>
> In (1) the classifiers are lined up in cartographic order: size, color; in
> (2) both modifiers relate to size.  Hence the comma is used.
>
> The idea with classifiers is that once one is used the noun is may be
> identified; additional classifiers of the same sort do not further identify
> the item.  If classifiers of a different sort are applied, then the item
> becomes better or more narrowly identified.  We come to be dealing with a
> smaller or more restricted class of items.  This makes the comma
> unnecessary.
>
> When identifiers are piled on, the item has already been identified and
> further modification of the same sort is non-restrictive. This is often the
> distinction between relative clauses introduced by "that" (identification)
> and "which, who" (non-restrictive).  The former connective may be
> appropriate when the item is not identified, whereas the latter, when it
> already is.  This may be a means of clarifying classification.
>
> 3. The blue car that is big (a big blue car)
> 4. The big car that is blue (a big car that happens to be blue)
> 5. The blue car which is big (a blue car that happens to be big)
> 6. The big car which is blue (same as (4))
>
> So, when the adjectives are classifying, the restrictive vs.
> non-restrictive contrast helps to clarify the cartographic order.
>
> Sometimes the modifiers are are even more narrow in their classificatory
> function.  In (7) the adjectives modify the color, which is a noun being
> used transitorily as an adjective.
>
> 7.  The deep dark blue car
>
> The noun blue is used attributively to classify the car.  The adjective
> dark is used to classify the color, not the car.  Then the adjective deep is
> used to classify the shade of dark blue, not the blue car.  Of course, the
> question of commas or shifting of rank is not applicable here.  In (8) the
> adjective deep might be interpreted either way.  In this case the comma
> might be helpful.
>
> 8.  The deep dark blue water (the water that is a deep dark blue)
> 9.  The deep, dark blue water (the dark blue water that is deep)
>
> So, even though the cartographic order in (9) is size then color, the comma
> has a different function [zeugmatic homonymic hyponym].  This is the
> list-comma.  It helps to group items with their modifiers.  When the
> list-comma is left out before the final item on a list, it is called the
> Oxford comma.  My own disposition is to use the Oxford comma, even when
> sometimes the presence of a conjunction would seem to make it redundant. But
> whether or not authors use the Oxford comma, I think it is important that
> they be consistent.
>
> Bruce
> P.S.  Sorry for the oxymoronic term, but I couldn't resist
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/