*This castle, which has been unoccupied for around two hundred years, is now a tourist attraction. *
*
Red, whose parents are both away on a business trip, is staying with her grandmother. *
the answer key shows that only one of these sentences has commas. why the difference? can i either put, or leave out the commas regardless? as with everything else, it’s just a matter of style isn’t it?
The first sentence could be writen without commas, depending on what you’re trying to say. Without commas, it means you’ve been previously talking about several castles, and are now pointing out that the unoccupied one is a tourist attraction. This may be a clearer explanation.
But in that case you should use “that” rather than “which”. Even then, the revised sentence:
*This castle that has been unoccupied for around two hundred years is now a tourist attraction. *
is pretty awkward. It suggests that there is more than one unoccupied castle being discussed and that the only way of distinguishing which one you are talking about is the length of time it has been unoccupied.
As written, both sentences definitely require commas.
It is awkward, but he already said that one of the sentences was without commas. The first one is a better candidate for no commas than the second; since “Red” is a proper noun, the meaning’s already as restricted as it’s going to get even without adding a clause.
I’m not sure what “the answer key shows that only one of these sentences has commas” means. Were the sentences both written without commas and the question was which one needed them? Or were they written with commas and the question was which one didn’t need them?
Perhaps I’m missing something here, but neither sentence can really do without its commas, as far as I can tell. The first one is maybe just less wrong without them, but still not great:
“This castle which has been unoccupied for around two hundred years is now a tourist attraction.”
Without commas, I’d agree with Colophon; “that” is better than “which”:
“This castle that has been unoccupied for around two hundred years is now a tourist attraction.”
But both times the sentences seem to be missing punctuation. I’d much rather just use the original one.
I would put it the other way round, since the “This” in the first sentence disambiguates which castle you are talking about. On the other hand, in the second case it is conceivable that we had been discussing two people called Red, and their parental circumstances. But yes, still awkward without the commas.
Just a note that placement of commas is not grammar, it’s style.
Yes–formally one is taught that “that” is used to introduce restrictive clauses, while “which” is for non-restrictive clauses. It doesn’t bother me when “which” is used without commas to introduce a restrictive clause, but it’s best to use “that” to avoid confusion and to keep the sticklers at bay.
That doesn’t look like it’s missing punctuation if “has been unoccupied for around two hundred years” is supposed to be used in a restrictive rather than explanatory sense. It’s fine. What does bug me and make me feel like that should be an explanatory clause is the use of “this” rather than “the” in “this castle.” If we’re talking about a bunch of castles and want to specify the one that has been unoccupied for two hundred years, the usual construction would be “the castle that has been unoccupied for around two hundred years is now a tourist attraction.” Using “this castle” in that construction sounds to me like you’ve already specified the castle (hence using “this”) and are adding further information about it.
Anyhow, as written the OP, both sentences are punctuated correctly, so far as I can tell.
OK, I now see that I misread the first sentence as “The castle…”
Since it says “This”, a restrictive clause is not needed as we know which castle we are talking about, so “which” can be used. But I would still follow the rule that “which” takes commas and “that” doesn’t.
Yes, I would as well.
Seems to me both sentences need commas, as both clauses are nonrestrictive, regardless of whether “that” or “which” is used.
No. Punctuational choices can sometimes be matter of style. However, the issue here, given that there are clear right and wrong ways to punctuate these sentences (relative to the intended meaning), is much more akin to being a matter of grammar than one of style.
Both the sentences as given in isolation require commas. There might be certain rather odd contexts where leaving out the commas might be justified, but we are not given such a context, so the “answer key” is wrong.
i no longer have the book with me, but those were two separate synthesis/transformation questions. the first one requires you to rewrite using the word “which”, and “whose” for the second. the answer for the one with the castle is shown without commas.
let me get this straight - restrictive clauses does not require commas, while non-restrictive clauses do.
- the castle answer without commas means it is restrictive, so if there were other castles in context, none of them had been unoccupied for 200 years.
- the castle answer with commas means it is non-restrictive, so if there were other castles in context, they might or might not have been unoccupied for 200 years.
- the red answer without commas means it is restrictive, so if there were other children in context, none of them had parents away on business trips.
- the red answer with commas means it is non-restrictive, so if there were other children, some might or might not have parents away on business trips.
how far off am i?
I agree, except I’m not sure I can really construct a context where the castle sentence is correct without commas, as “This” already specifies one particular castle. Had the first sentence started with “The” rather than “This”, then there’s a plausible context* (though with odd phrasing) where leaving out the commas is justified, but we can’t assume that context.
- E.g. “Five of these six castles have been continuously occupied and are still private residences. The castle which has been unoccupied for around two hundred years is now a tourist attraction.” This is still pretty awkward and a poor sentence, but at least barely technically defensible, grammatically speaking.
Yes. Grammar is concerned with syntax–parts of speech and their relationships and structure. Style is concerned with conveying the intended meaning. All versions of these sentences, regardless of how punctuated, are grammatically correct. That doesn’t mean they convey the intended meaning.
For the “Red” answer, it appears that Red is a proper noun, the name of a particular child. In order for the sentence to make sense without the commas, there would need to be more than one child named Red, only one of whose parents are on a business trip. Even there, you would expect a definite article:
- The Red whose parents are both away on a business trip is staying with her grandmother.
Otherwise, it reads like
- Red-whose-parents-are-both-away-on-a-business-trip is staying with her grandmother.
You have it pretty much backwards. Style refers to idiosyncratic differences in how something is said or written that do not affect meaning, and it is thus a matter of aesthetic taste (or local convention) rather than right or wrong. Grammatical differences, by contrast, most certainly can and often do affect meaning, and grammar can be right or wrong. Indeed, it can be wrong in two different ways, either because some utterance does not conform to grammatical rules at all, or because it is so constructed as to convey a meaning different from that intended.
The issue in the OP is not a stylistic one, as you asserted. Leaving out or keeping the commas is not a matter of aesthetics. It is either simply wrong (according to the established rules of punctuation) to leave out the commas, or (on certain rather implausible assumptions about the context in which the sentences might have appeared) it conveys a different meaning. The issue is thus, as I said, much more akin to a grammatical one than a stylistic one.
Style is entirely a matter of meaning and clarity. Take for instance the serial comma, or lack thereof, in this famous example:I would like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
There is no rule of grammar that addresses this. Whether to use a comma before the final “and” is a matter of style, and clearly affects the meaning in this case. The sentence can be parsed grammatically in two ways. The comma can suggest to the reader to which one was intended, but the comma itself is not part of grammar. You can still parse the sentence either way with or without the comma and be perfectly compliant with the rules of grammar.
Well, of course. A grammatical error can result in unintended meaning. That does not imply that all unintended meanings are grammatical errors.
Of course it can be considered right or wrong (if you’re a prescriptivist). But being wrong does not mean that the error is therefore a grammatical one.
You seem to be making your point by emphatically repeating your premise. Let’s look at one highly respected source. The preface to the Chicago Manual of Style says of itself that most of it “deals with ‘house style’ (consistent form of capitalization, punctuation, spelling, hyphenation, documentation, and so forth)…” Note the presence of “punctuation” and the absence of “grammar” in this definition of “style” by one of the most authoritative books on the subject. It goes on to say that the 15th edition adds a chapter entitled Grammar. That chapter goes on to begin defining grammar as follows:
The chapter goes on to discuss grammar for 38 pages. The only mention of any punctuation is the apostrophe used as an inflection to indicate the possessive. Of course, in English the possessive is a part of speech and the inflection is required to indicate it and distinguish it from the plural, so it is appropriate to include it in a discussion of grammar. Otherwise, commas and all other punctuation are treated as stylistic elements.
Relationships and comma usage: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2013-08-01