A reference back to Geoffrey's quoting of 'the much-derided Strunk' who has
argued, it seems, against a comma AFTER a co-ordinating conjunction followed
by a subordinating one.  (See Geoffrey's original email below).

I feel I must align myself with 'the much-derided Strunk' in this case.  In
the case of a subordinate element (at Christensen's second level -- and, by
the same token, before a third-level element subordinated to a second-level
one), our vocal apparatus produces lower pitch in order to audibly-punctuate
the lower status of the subordinated element.  In the example given this is
certainly the case with regard to 'if we are prepared to act promptly'.
Try it and you will hear (though perhaps this is an Englishman's
differentiating!).  Therefore there should be a comma after 'but' to match
this aural and grammatical level-distinction.  'But' undoubtedly goes with
the second main clause 'there is still one chance of escape' and not with
the conditional clause.

With regard to the comma BEFORE the CO-ORDINATING conjunction, I would tend
to offer the following advice, that, [COMMA!] if the subject in the two main
clauses is the same, with the second subject being a pronoun, I would leave
out the comma, thus:

Jones went in before everyone else but he didn't notice what had happened.

Whereas if the subject is a new one, a comma is required:

Jones went in before everyone else, but Brown, actually the last to go in,
was the one who noticed the change.

Edmond


Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256





> 
> And here is the much-derided Mr. Strunk's take on the problem
> (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html):

>  
> The situation is perilous, but if we are prepared to act promptly, there is
still one chance of escape.

> 
> Two-part sentences of which the second member is introduced by as (in the
> sense of because), for, or, nor, and while (in the sense of and at the same
> time) likewise require a comma before the conjunction.
> 
>  
> 
> If a dependent clause, or an introductory phrase requiring to be set off by a
> comma, precedes the second independent clause, no comma is needed after the
> conjunction.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is perilous, but if we are prepared to act promptly, there is
> still one chance of escape.
> 
> Two-part sentences of which the second member is introduced by as (in the
> sense of because), for, or, nor, and while (in the sense of and at the same
> time) likewise require a comma before the conjunction. If a dependent clause,
> or an introductory phrase requiring to be set off by a comma, precedes the
> second independent clause, no comma is needed after the conjunction.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is perilous, but if we are prepared to act promptly, there is
> still one chance of escape.
>  
> Although Strunk doesn't address the issue directly, what if his sentence had
> read: 
>  
> 
> "The situation is perilous, because if we aren't prepared to act promptly,
> there will be no chance of escape."
>  
> It seems to me that the comma does belong before the "because" here even
> though "because" can be construed as restrictive.
>  
> Geoff Layton
> 
> 
>  
>> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:43:45 -0500
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Punctuation Question
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> Martha's _Rhetorical Grammar_ offers a solution here. She points out that a
>> comma places focus on the word in front of it (in speech, "the pause," the
>> slight raise in pitch and accent). In this case it preserves some focus for
>> the end of the main clause, which would receive end forcus if the because
>> clause was moved to the front of the sentence. I always enjoyed telling my
>> students that the comma between a main clause and a subordinate one following
>> it was optional -- trust your ear -- it's a rhetorical choice.
>> 
>> Dave Sawyer
>> Dept. of English (Retired)
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Karl Hagen [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:35 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Punctuation Question
>> 
>> I would suspect the writer is not making any conscious decision at all
>> about syntactic analysis (e.g., deciding that "because" is a
>> coordinator). More likely, he is punctuating on feel, and inserted the
>> comma because he hears a slight pause in his mental reading of the
>> sentence and wants to convey that pause.
>> 
>> On 4/13/2011 4:16 AM, T. J. Ray wrote:
>>> I believe you're right in thinking he feels this is a coordinate
>>> conjunction. My understanding is that
>>> "because" clauses are dependent and hence should not be preceded with a
>>> comma. I just
>>> wanted a number of opinions before I bring it to the committee's
>>> attention, folks who evidently
>>> don't see a problem with it as no one had marked any of these before I
>>> saw the MSS.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday 04/13/2011 at 5:43 am, "Dixon, Jack" wrote:
>>>> Focusing on the obvious, I suspect the writer believes that "because"
>>>> functions as a coordinating conjunction rather than a subordinating.
>>>> Does the student punctuate most subordinating clauses that follow the
>>>> independent clause this way, or do he make this mistake with "because"
>>>> only?
>>>> 
>>>> I seem to remember that Martha Kolln in _Rhetorical Grammar_ addresses
>>>> the few instances when terminal subord. clauses are set off with commas.
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of T. J. Ray [[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:10 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Punctuation Question
>>>> 
>>>> I have a doctoral student who produces sentences like the following:
>>>> 
>>>> "This quatrain cannot be read in isolation at all, because the syntax
>>>> is
>>>> inherent and incomplete on its own."
>>>> 
>>>> My question is not a search for whatever he meant to say but is about
>>>> his punctuation: the comma. Comments are welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> T. J.
>>>> 
>>>> 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/
>>>> 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/
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>> 
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
>> 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/
>  
> 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/

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/