Could you provide a cite for that? I just checked several guides, and they all list between 5 and 10 uses, none of which is “to introduce a pause”.
Yeah, I distinctly remember my freshman English teacher, who also wrote editorials for the sports section of the local newspaper, so he imagined he had some authority on the subject, sneering at the idea that commas had anything to do with pauses in speech. He said that’s what ellipses were for, or at least that was one of their uses. I don’t know. I guess it all comes down to personal style and preference, though, really.
I grossly overuse commas. But mostly because I overuse leading dependent clauses. They’re not always wrong, but lots of them are not a good habit.
The better answer for the OP is to rework the sentence. Maybe “Once (or After) the design has matured we will …” Or break it into two sentences. “First the design must be matured. Then we will …”
A dependant adverbial clause of time preceding the independent clause usually takes a comma.
I would include the comma.
Wouldn’t that depend on how hot grandma is?
I like the semicolon.
Unlike the comma, where "let’s eat grandma/ Let’s eat, grandma is well known.
Let’s eat Grandma;The hair on her knuckles may stick in your teeth.
Not usually. Nearly always. And not just time adverbial dependent clauses–all dependent clauses.
I actually researched this once. Yes, every once in a while–in very short sentences–you might see it dropped. (I think one case I found was something by Margaret Atwood.)
But String Bean, Chessic Sense, Muffin, etc. are correct: This is one of those basic, pretty straight forward, pretty much universally followed usages of commas. It’s one of the easier comma “rules” you have teaching freshman comp, providing students can identify a dependent clause.
“[Del]Revenge[/del] Grandma is a dish best served cold.”
K. N. Singh 1950(?) - c. 2292
No. This is a matter of orthography, not grammar. And orthography is merely a set of conventions.
In my opinion, it is easier to read with the comma, than it would be without the comma.
In my opinion, a comma after the word “work” would improve it.
My high school English teachers would grumble about the passive voice in the middle of the sentence.
No comma after “work” if you’re following conventional style guides. It’s a dependent clause. If it were independent and had its own subject, yes.
True, but this is one of those cases where orthography intersects with grammar, in that it involves subordination, and specifically only when the subordinate clause precedes the independent clause, so it involves syntax.
Yes, it’s not a full clause, because the subject (the xxxxx method) has been removed as a result of the parallelism. In such cases, no comma is used–generally. But even if it were not a parallelism, and instead a full clause (i.e., the xxxxx method will use the zzzzzz Toolkit), it would not be a dependent clause, but rather a coordinate clause. Whether a clause is dependent or not is not a result of parallelism (because then it’s no longer a clause), but rather the result of a subordinating conjunction, such as when in the beginning of the sentence.
Leaffan, for a bit over ten $CDN including shipping, get your hands on an old copy of
The Oxford Guide to Writing: A Rhetoric and Handbook for College Students by Thomas S. Kane, published by Oxford University Press, 1983, ISBN 10: 0195032454 ISBN 13: 9780195032451.
As a handbook it provides you with clear answers, and as a rhetoric it can help you improve your technical writing and editing skills. Although there are more recent editions, the first is toppers, so save your cash and get the oldest but bestest.
It’s extremely well organized and indexed, making it easy to find what you are looking for, which is very helpful when you are trying to understand a term that refers you to another couple of terms. For example, in this thread you have a question about a particular use of a comma, but there are may uses of commas, and differentiating requires you to understand further terms, such as such as clause v. phrase, independent v. dependent, adjective v. adverb, etc., so it can be very helpful to have a reference text that is easy to find your way around.
It is loaded with examples of good writing, and carefully explains why the good examples are good, going far beyond simple grammar. It can help you learn to communicate clearly with your audience by helping you learn what does or does not work based on your solid analysis rather than based on whether it does or does not “sound right” to you. (Often breaking the “rules” is OK, but it’s important to know the rules first before making an informed and considered decision to break them, rather that blunder about like a special princess expecting the world to understand what the fuck you’re blathering on about.)
Best of all, it’s a hardcover that is neither too heavy nor too light. It is the perfect shape and weight for clubbing anyone who disagrees with your editorial decisions.
(In a past life before I became an asshole for hire, I ran a technical writing business, was a Society for Technical Communications senior technical writer, speaker and moderator, and taught technical writing and English lit at Ontario universities and colleges, including the first technical writing course in what is now the U. of Waterloo’s Rhetoric, Media, and Professional Communication degree program. If, in your career of keeping Canada safe from that which people think glows in the dark, you find yourself involved with the Darlington re-furb, keep your eyes open for the old station reference plan on writing and editing the stations reference plans. I had my fingers in that one, so if the whole shebang makes a mess of the Toronto region, you know why I now live a thousand kilometers away. ;). If you run into a writing issue that has you flummoxed, run it by me and I’ll give you my two cents.)
Thanks Muffin!
Or, Commas Are Our Friends by Joe Devine, 1988.
Atwood is a master of English usage. She plays with it by working with it rather than abusing it. In daily conversation and in her prose, she seldom breaks with convention, but when she does, she does to good effect. That makes her prose very easy to read, rather than some tortuous mastication. In her prose, she offers substance rather than smoke and mirrors, which helps her themes emerge rather than be buried by quirky, off-putting usage in a textual analogy of a shaky-cam.
My master’s thesis was on Atwood’s novels. I enjoyed some of her novels more than others, but I found all of them to be easily readable, which in turn in helped me focus on their many subtle thematic complexities rather than get bogged down with her mechanics. I guess that’s the technical writer coming out in me. KISS (keep it simple, stupid!) in your communication is usually the best way for parties to introduce, investigate and discuss complex ideas.
If you get into Joyce, Pound, Eliot, McLuhan, Barthes, Derrida, etc., Atwood does not at first come to mind, but if you look at her novels as being the text version of a master story teller sitting at the side of a stream, enjoying a shore lunch while sharing a tale with you, in clear, simple words, conveying complex and often caliginous ideas and contradictions, it leaves you with much to consider long after the telling of the story. In that sense, her novels are deceptively readerly despite on their face appearing to be writerly – not by breaking with usage conventions, but rather by using clear prose to present multi-faceted approaches to open-ended questions. She takes you on a journey in her stories, but once the story has been told, you move forward in life with it now being a part of how you perceive and question your world.
So yes, Atwood is an excellent example of a writer who’s prose is highly effective in part because she rarely breaks with conventional usage. She does not let off-putting usage in her medium block her message.
I’m middle-aged, so yes, if grandma is my sweetie, then “Let’s eat grandma!” is far preferable.
We should ask the big, bad wolf.
Rules shmules. If a comma makes the sentence easier to understand, use a comma.