A Short Comma Quiz

A Short Comma Quiz A Short Comma Quiz A Short Comma Quiz By Mark Nichol Here are five sentences that, through poor punctuation, lead readers astray. Determine how to punctuate them correctly, and then compare your solutions with the ones in the paragraph below each example. 1. â€Å"Now there’s a formula for disaster.† As written, this statement reads like a pitch to be followed by an exclamation point (or inflected as if there is one) in a commercial or an advertisement for a new product: a disaster formula. To correctly communicate that the sentence is a commentary on an ill-advised proposal, the introductory adverb should be set off from the rest of the sentence by a comma: â€Å"Now, there’s a formula for disaster.† (Of course, in context, the latter meaning will be clear, but the comma is still required; it’s a signal that the emphasis is on there. In the pitch, the speaker would emphasize now.) 2. â€Å"United States bombs hotel killing three journalists.† This newspaper headline conjures an image of a rampaging journalist-killing hotel halted, Godzilla-style, by the intervention of US bomber planes. What it means, however, is that US forces accidentally bombed a hotel, resulting in the deaths of three journalists. This meaning is clarified by the simple insertion of a sentence separating the clauses describing cause and effect: â€Å"United States bombs hotel, killing three journalists.† 3. â€Å"The next antiwar demonstration scheduled on April 7 may take aim at companies.† By omitting commas from this sentence, the writer implies that of a series of antiwar demonstrations being sequentially scheduled on April 7, the next one may focus its attention on companies. However, â€Å"scheduled on April 7† is intended as a parenthetical statement (one that could be omitted with no loss of sense), so it must be set off by commas: â€Å"The next antiwar demonstration, scheduled on April 7, may take aim at companies.† 4. â€Å"The corporation’s waterfront plan is criticized by the deputy attorney general who says it violates land-use laws.† This sentence prompts the same misunderstanding as the previous one: the implication that multiple things (or, in this case, people) exist when the writer intends to refer to only one. The false impression that of two or more deputy attorney generals, only one has voiced the stated criticism is eliminated by insertion of a comma: â€Å"The corporation’s waterfront plan is criticized by the deputy attorney general, who says it violates land-use laws.† 5. â€Å"You’ll get a coveted window card autographed by the cast and other memorabilia.† Readers of this sentence might believe that not only the cast but also other memorabilia will autograph the coveted window card. To clarify, however, that the memorabilia will not participate in the signing (but will be provided along with the card signed by the cast), a comma must be inserted; note, too, that I’ve replaced the simple conjunction and with plus, which helps distance the closing phrase from the rest of the sentence: â€Å"You’ll get a coveted window card autographed by the cast, plus other memorabilia.† (â€Å"As well as† would serve the same function.) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Punctuation category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Math or Maths?Does "Mr" Take a Period?Drama vs. Melodrama