Comma usage in complex sentences.
The Scribe has received many questions about comma usage; so the next few tips will explore the fascinating subject of commas … beginning with comma usage in complex sentences.
A complex sentence consists of one independent clause and one or more dependent clauses. An independent clause is a group of words made up of a subject (which says what or who the sentence is about) and a predicate (which says something about the subject and contains a verb). By itself, an independent clause is a simple, stand-alone sentence (e.g., “If you build it, he will come.”). A clause is dependent when it is introduced with a subordinating conjunction (e.g., “because,” “although,” “if,” “after,” “before,” “until,” “since,” “so that,” “unless,” “while,” “when,” “where,” “even though”) or relative pronoun (“who,” “whom,” “whose,” “whoever,” “whomever,” “that,” “which”).
Whether to use a comma between an independent clause and a dependent clause depends upon the meaning of and relationship between the clauses. When the dependent clause is restrictive—or necessary to the meaning of the sentence—don’t use a comma. When the dependent clause is nonrestrictive—or not necessary to the meaning of the sentence—use a comma. (Those rules also explain when to use “that” and when to use “which.” “That” is restrictive and is used without a comma; “which” is nonrestrictive and is used with a comma.)
Those rules often lead to confusion, because the same sentence can be punctuated more than one way and still be correct, depending on its meaning.
Restrictive:
Chad did not make an objection because he wanted to win. (Meaning that he objected for another reason.)
Nonrestrictive:
Chad did not make an objection, because he wanted to win. (Meaning that the reason he did not object was that he wanted to win.)
In some situations, the use or omission of a comma can cue the reader about the relationship between two clauses and prevent misreading. Compare the following examples:
Joe’s Burger Shop argues that the trial court erred because Joe’s presented evidence showing that genuine issues of material fact existed.
Joe’s Burger Shop argues that the trial court erred, because Joe’s presented evidence showing that genuine issues of material fact existed.
In the first example, the “because” clause explains the “that” clause element of the main clause (i.e., why the trial court arguably erred). By contrast, in the second example, the “because” clause explains the main subject and verb of the main clause (i.e., why Joe’s Burger Shop is making the argument).
That is all for now …