Rachel Starr Thomson

Good afternoon, gentle readers! Today (not yesterday, because tech problems prevented me from getting online), we shall learn more about that merry little buttonhook of a punctuation mark, the comma. Judging from the comments left by readers on this particular series of writing tips, the comma tends to wrap itself around the brain of the average writer and constrict, like a boa constrictor choking its dinner. Today we shall loosen the bands with the following proclamation:

Commas are not restrictive.

In grammar there exist two categories of phrase. One is called a restrictive phrase. As Chicago puts, a restrictive phrase is “essential to the meaning of the noun it belongs to.” It restricts that noun, giving it a very narrow meaning. Restrictive phrases do not use commas.

In this sentence, “dog” is the noun and “with its ears perked up” is the restrictive phrase. It restricts the noun, not allowing us to confuse this dog with any other, less perky pooch:

The dog with its ears perked up belongs to me.

But in this sentence, “with its ears perked up” is nonrestrictive — it is telling us what this dog is doing, but it’s not really essential to the meaning of the noun. With or without its ears perked up, the same dog would still be walking down the street.

The dog, with its ears perked up, walked down the street.

A nonrestrictive phrase always takes commas around it. It is not essential to the meaning of the noun it describes. It’s essentially an interruption, and interruptions almost always take commas around them.

Here are a few more nonrestrictive examples. Note the commas setting off that interrupting — but always interesting — phrase:

My brother, swearing revenge to the skies, hopped away on one foot.

The unicycle, rusty pedals and all, wobbled down the street.

Our conversation was interrupted by a fine gentleman, dapper as a May morning on the golf course, who tapped me on the shoulder.

Until next time, fare thee well.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS