Our township ordinance has section numbers and titles; e.g., “Section 6.1.6 Uses Permitted by Right:” These are written as titles or headings, and not in any sort of grammatical sentence that is part of the text of the ordinance.
When we are writing prose and we refer to a section, we often refer to its number and title; e.g., “According to Section 6.1.6, Uses Permitted By Right, a detached guest house is allowable only under certain conditions.”
I read The Well-Tempered Sentence and The Transitive Vampire, and am now reading Strunk & White and have learned that restrictive clauses should not be set off by a comma. It would seem to me that the title is a restrictive clause to the number and therefore should not have a comma.
I am curious if any brilliant grammarians or legal experts can give me the Dope on this. If you’re not brilliant, or not a grammarian or legal expert, you insights are welcome as well!
Been a while since I’ve had a grammar class but I don’t personally have a problem with the commas.
What if you were referring to a person instead of a section?
“According to js_africanus, a Straight Dope Message Board Charter Member, restrictive clauses should not be set off by commas.”
“According to js_africanus a Straight Dope Message Board Charter Member, restrictive clauses should not be set off by commas.”
“According to js_africanus a Straight Dope Message Board Charter Member restrictive clauses should not be set off by commas.”
Examples 2 and 3 both look wrong to me. Example 1 looks correct. Your example as written looks correct.
The one that drives me batty is when the identifier comes first and is set off by commas: "“According to Straight Dope Message Board Charter Member, js_africanus, restrictive clauses should not be set off by commas.” Ugh.
Disclaimer: I recently (1 week ago) took a mid-term exam on this stuff for my graduate-level editing class, and I got a B+ (which is the only reason I’m even hazarding a guess), but I still might be wrong.
I believe that, as written, “Uses Permitted By Right” is a nonrestrictive phrase/clause (are those two words interchangeable?). And I think it’s a nonrestrictive adjectival phrase, at that.
It is true that restrictive phrases should not have commas; I think you could write the above sentence either way and it would be correct. If house style is to always refer to both the section number and its title, to me that presents a case for dropping the commas (because in effect, the number becomes part of the title). But if there are times when you would refer to just “Section 6.1.6,” keep the commas in there.
Any resemblance of this answer to helpful or accurate advice is merely coincidental…
I’m with Miss nomer. Unless there are more than one sections 6.1.6, “Section 6.1.6” identifies it completely, so the the following “Uses Permitted By Right” is just a description.
I think Mlle. Nomer calling it a nonrestrictive adjectival phrase is a good characterization (I never passed an editing test, but did write and edit for a living, kind of)
“Uses Permitted by Right” should be set off by commas, but not on the basis of (non-)restrictiveness. As the title given to the section whose number is “Section 6.1.6” it is in apposition to them, and, like all appositives, is set off by commas.
In “The BBQ Pit, the forum on SDMB set apart for rants and complaints, is at the bottom of the forums listing,” the long description is standing in apposition to the subject, “The BBQ Pit,” and is accordingly set off by commas.
Well, at least I’m not alone: my entire editing class struggles with the difference between “nonrestrictive adjectival” and “nonrestrictive appositive.”
IANA grammarian, but IAL. If your question is “is this a restrictive clause?” My answer is, “hmm. Good question.” (Yes, I cracked open my trusty Strunk & White, and I still don’t have an answer.)
If your question is whether “Uses Permitted by Right” should be set off with commas (or parentheses, a personal favorite), I’d say, of course. Why? Because it reads better that way, and because the phrase is irrelevant and unnecessary to the sentence. So I would set it off for ease of reading and to indicate that it is merely helpful but not necessary.
As lawyers, some of what we write is grammatically incorrect, but done for a particular reason – because it reads better, because it gets the point across, etc. At least, that’s my excuse. Which I will point to, when someone points out the grammatical errors in this post.
There are rare occasions when restrictive appositives occur, but I believe they are still set off by commas. “I mean John Edwards, the Vice Presidential candidate, not John Edwards, the fraudulent psychic.”
One thing I’ve learned is that when people’s rights to the free use of their land & property lie in the placement of a comma, a strict adherence to the conventions & logic of punctuation make readability considerably less important than it would otherwise be. This is especially true when a property owner hires an attorney who has no truck with morality*; the power of Sophism in local politics is stunning.
Since it is an appositive, I’ll stick w/ the commas. (Would that help explain why the Supreme Court has ruled that the heading to a piece of law cannot limit the clear meaning of the text?)
*FTR, I have only dealt with one dishonest lawyer who is a dedicated Sophist. I’ve dealt w/ some who were just plain illogical. The two attorneys the township has had during my tenure have been great to work with. Please don’t take the above remark as a general anti-lawyer slam.
“Readability” can be subjective, which is why there are rules. To my way of thinking, the rule regarding restrictive/nonrestrictive phrases does add to a sentence’s readability: the sentence often means one thing with the commas and another without them.
For example:
In “My friend John is smart,” the word “John” is restrictive: I have several friends, but I’m talking specifically (restrictively) about John. You need “John” to know who I’m talking about.
In “My friend, John, is smart,” the word “John” is nonrestrictive: I have only one friend – or, because of context you already know that I’m only talking about one friend – so the word “John” becomes extra information about that friend.
(I just noticed that “John” is one of those words that starts to look really weird when you read/write it too much…)
I hope “readibility, shmeadibility” was taken lightheardedly by all. But you are right that sticking to convention is very important. I now say that when (if) we do an ordinance overhaul, we need clearly state which style guide and usage guide shall determine how the rules of language apply.
For example, consider this provision:
For the longest time that was considered to proscribe unlicensed boats, but then it would also proscribe unlicensed junk, thus prompting the question: what the hell is licensed junk? When you have a land owner who doesn’t want to pay to store a boat but instead wants to winter it in his driveway and another land owner insisting that wintering a boat in one’s driveway is against the ordinance, you find yourself in a situation where little things make a big difference.
Ah yes, the old misplaced modifier … very important, especially in cases (like yours) that could have legal/punitive ramifications.
Another “comma” example that I learned a few years ago:
A will that reads, “I leave my money to Sharon, Jeff and Noel” could have a different legal meaning than a will that reads “I leave my money to Sharon, Jeff, and Noel.” In the first sentence, there is the chance that the money will be put into a joint account for Jeff and Noel instead of divided between them – which is what the second sentence specifies. So, in the first sentence, you’re not 100% sure whether the author meant to have “and” before “Jeff,” but in the second sentence the intent is clear. For such reasons, we should always err on the side of clarity … something my posts on this subject rarely achieve.
