Q. Must a comma always precede the phrase “such as”? If not, what is the rule for when there should be a comma?
A. You need a comma if what follows is nonrestrictive. Our Q&A has devoted much space to this issue; if you type “restrictive” into the search box, you can access the relevant questions and answers.
Restrictive: I love moments such as those. [I don’t love all moments; this tells which moments I do love.]
Unrestrictive: Don’t you love that lucky, jazzy feeling, such as when you meet someone cute or find money in your pocket? [I love that feeling, unrestricted; here are some examples of it.]
(And thanks to questions such as yours, we now treat this specific question in CMOS; see paragraph 6.50 in the seventeenth edition.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. An author of an article I am copyediting asked me to restore the commas I had deleted in the following sentence: “Most
of my nightmares are a process of working out a deeper objectivity about, and unity with, what God would have me do.”
I do not mind the two commas in this sentence, although I prefer it without. However, I know the proofreader will object.
Can you refer me to a rule I can cite to get either the author or the proofreader to back down?
A. Yes. When commas are optional and the author wants them in, even after the copy editor has suggested taking them out, the
copy editor should leave them in. The proofreader doesn’t get to decide. Simply write “stet
commas, per author” in the margin.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have noticed in emails that people who want to be informal begin with “Hi Fred.” I have also seen the salutation as “Hi, Fred.” Since email is an electronic letter, is it OK to simply begin with “Hi Fred,”? The other way seems a bit awkward.
A. This isn’t so much a matter of Chicago style as personal style. Is it OK to treat email as an informal form of communication with relaxed rules and etiquette? It’s probably wise to use the same judgment you use in writing paper letters to people. If you’re writing to a client or your boss, follow the conventions of letter writing. In this case, that means putting a comma before the direct address (Hi, Fred). “Dear Fred” is not the same grammatically, and it takes no comma. (Note also that “Hi, Fred” and “Dear Fred” are not formal forms of address, with or without the comma.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If you write “In the opening of Raymond Chandler’s 1940 novel Farewell, My Lovely . . . ,” ought there to be a comma after novel, as it was his only novel published that year and so what follows is a nonrestrictive appositive? Or does that seem too clunky?
A. The comma is correct, but it can be considered optional in contexts where a writer isn’t necessarily privy to the facts that would determine restriction, and where, as you point out, the extra comma would be awkward.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I write professional resumes, and I have a question about the use of a comma in a sentence with including. My proofer has begun inserting a comma prior to including followed by a list: “Managed a variety of projects, including joint, combined, and contingency exercises.” Should this comma be omitted?
A. Many readers write to ask whether the word including always requires a comma in front of it, but there’s no simple answer. Each instance must be decided individually, because a comma changes the meaning.
I invited all the clubs including biker chicks and pit tootsies.
I invited all the clubs, including biker chicks and pit tootsies.
The first sentence is ambiguous; it might mean that I invited only clubs that include biker chicks and pit tootsies among their members. The second sentence makes clear that I invited all clubs, regardless of membership, and that this included the chicks’ and tootsies’ clubs. In your text you need a comma if the chunk after including is nonrestrictive (that is, if some of the projects included joint exercises, some included combined, some both, etc.). Without a comma, including becomes restrictive, and the implication is that every project included joint, combined, and contingency exercises.
You can read more about restriction by typing restrictive into the search box at the CMOS Q&A site.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is there a rule that I’ve missed somewhere that says there should always be a comma before the word
“then” if “then” is at the end of
a sentence? For example: It’s settled, then. Sometimes it sounds fine; other times it seems more like
an obstacle to the flow of the sentence. But a rule is a rule, so if you can point me to the correct section in CMOS, I’ll stop turning up my nose at this construction.
A. It’s dangerous to make a rule saying that you always have to put a comma in front of a particular word,
so we avoid doing that. The trick is to determine whether a comma is needed. In the case of “then”
it’s rarely needed when the word means “at that time”; it’s
often needed when it means “in that case.” The comma shows the meaning:
Meet me at the hot tub then. (Then = at the appointed time.)
Meet me at the hot tub, then. (Then = so, it’s decided.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am having a dispute with a local store regarding their return policy, worded as such: “[Retailers]
will refund the purchase price of any previewed, defective or mislabeled products returned within 30 days, provided you have
the original receipt.” The retailers claim that since the serial comma is not employed, “previewed”
becomes a stipulation of both “defective” and “mislabeled.”
Under their interpretation of the policy this is equivalent to saying “any previewed defective or previewed
mislabeled products.” This is especially important to me, since I purchased a new, defective product
from them.
A. Chalk one up for Chicago’s promotion of the serial comma! Although you must consult an attorney in
order to learn the legal import of the phrasing in question, one can’t help but ask: if the retailers
think that “any previewed, defective or mislabeled products” is equivalent to
“any previewed defective or previewed mislabeled products,” would they also agree
that “any mushroom, pepperoni or sausage pizza” is equivalent to “any
mushroom pepperoni pizza or mushroom sausage pizza”? The retailers’ omission of
commas in their interpretation (“previewed defective or previewed mislabeled”)
is tantamount to admitting that the sentence was unclear as written. Finally, even if the retailers’
punctuation logic were technically correct (which it isn’t), they would be using the letter of the law
to evade its spirit.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When do you use a comma before “because”? I feel that I never need to put a comma before “because” because any information after it is necessary. What are your thoughts?
A. I disagree. Here’s the old example that comes to mind:
He didn’t run, because he was afraid.
He didn’t run because he was afraid.
In the first sentence, “because he was afraid” isn’t necessary; the main thing is that he didn’t run, and the reason is incidental. The second sentence, which omits the comma, is unclear. It might mean that he ran, but not because he was afraid. To prevent confusion, sometimes you need the comma. For more examples, see CMOS 6.25.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When I began learning English grammar from the nuns in or about 1951, I was taught to NEVER use a comma either after or before independent clauses or compound sentences. Did the rules of English grammar and punctuation change while I was in that three-week coma in 1965 or in the years that it took to regain my basic and intellectual functioning before I returned to teaching?
A. I’m sorry I can’t account for your state of mind, but standard punctuation calls for a comma before a conjunction that joins two independent clauses unless the clauses are very short. Please see CMOS 6.22. I would go further and suggest that it’s a good idea to reexamine any rule you were taught that includes the word “never” or “always.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. HELP! I’m arguing with a contract lawyer over this sentence: “The vendor may
use the board’s logo on its website and on documents, provided, that such use . . .”
I think that the comma after “provided” is wrong, and separates two parts of a
single clause. He insists that “with the use of a ‘proviso,’
the second comma is appropriate and correct punctuation.” There are many “provided
that” phrases in the document in question, and he wants each of them to be “provided,
that.” Am I (a) wrong to think that this comma is incorrect in English? (b) Wrong to think that legal
documents are written in English? (c) Not wrong?
A. You are correct about the punctuation. A second comma would only introduce ambiguity into an otherwise clear sentence, because in this case when “provided” is isolated by commas, it’s not clear whether it modifies “documents” or the following clause. It wouldn’t be the first time a convention of legal writing served to obscure meaning. In fact, some legal writers disdain the use of provisos altogether. Take a look at Joseph Kimble’s article for the Michigan Bar Journal , “Down with Provided That.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]