I've been told (and observed) that Canadians, as a rule (and I mean that idiomatically in the sense of "as a general thing"), use commas less than Americans, both in standard usage (e.g., "x, y and z" versus "x, y, and z" in the U.S.) and as a matter of personal style. Growing up in the U.S. I was taught to use commas to indicate (as Pullman so eloquently puts it) "the very slight pause for thought or breath that a comma intuitively signals, or to separate words or phrases that ought not to be run together." I'm not sure what Canadians of my era (1960s-70s) were taught, perhaps a similar guideline but with more emphasis on restraint. Anyway, since moving to Canada I've started scrutinizing my use of commas and am kind of amazed at how many can be eliminated without sacrificing or altering meaning. Some commas are required for clarity but others, as Pullum says, have to do with the rhythm of the sentence. I haven't really thought about it, but maybe the more sparing use of commas in Canada has something to do with a difference between the rhythm of spoken English in Canada and the U.S.? Anyway, before reading this article I'd never heard of the "no comma before because" rule and think that characterizing it as "bunk" was actually putting it quite politely.
I've been told (and observed) that Canadians, as a rule (and I mean that idiomatically in the sense of "as a general thing"), use commas less than Americans, both in standard usage (e.g., "x, y and z" versus "x, y, and z" in the U.S.) and as a matter of personal style. Growing up in the U.S. I was taught to use commas to indicate (as Pullman so eloquently puts it) "the very slight pause for thought or breath that a comma intuitively signals, or to separate words or phrases that ought not to be run together." I'm not sure what Canadians of my era (1960s-70s) were taught, perhaps a similar guideline but with more emphasis on restraint. Anyway, since moving to Canada I've started scrutinizing my use of commas and am kind of amazed at how many can be eliminated without sacrificing or altering meaning. Some commas are required for clarity but others, as Pullum says, have to do with the rhythm of the sentence. I haven't really thought about it, but maybe the more sparing use of commas in Canada has something to do with a difference between the rhythm of spoken English in Canada and the U.S.? Anyway, before reading this article I'd never heard of the "no comma before because" rule and think that characterizing it as "bunk" was actually putting it quite politely.
ReplyDelete