![]() |
|
| Commas
in Action |
|
|
As you
read this article, run your mouse over the text and see explanations
about how the commas are used. |
|
A Short History of Commas10 Simple RulesCommas in ActionTop 10 ReasonsComma QuizComma Project Home
Maguire Home Page |
This comma is used to separate items in a series. The items in this
case are three independent clauses. Notice there is no comma before
the coordinating conjunction, “or.”
This comma is used to separate two independent clauses connected by
a coordinating conjunction, which in this case is “but.”
The
first part of this sentence is a paraphrase. Since the attribution (the
“according to” part) comes after the paraphrase, it is set
off by a comma.
This
phrase, technically an appositive, modifies Martin Rees by providing
more information about him. It's nonessential since he's already been
identified.
Here's
another appositive, set off by commas because it is not essential to
identifying whom the article is about.
Commas
often work in pairs. That's what's happening here. This comma is closing
the appositive. It's inside quotation marks, where it belongs.
Here's
another instance of a comma used to separate the elements in a series.
There are four items in this series.
Another
comma goes here to separate elements of a series, but there's no comma
between the next element and the conjunction.
What
the is a comma doing here? The introductory phrase
is only two words long. Fuhgeddaboutit!!!
This
comma is used to set off a paraphrase from the attribution: "Rees
contends."
Since
there's a quote before the attribution, we put a comma between the two.
Notice that the comma, as always, is inside the quotation marks.
Here's
another nonessential modifier, and so another set of commas.
This
comma is used to set off the phrase “causing massive climate changes.”
You can tell it's a present participal because of the "-ing."
Here's
another example of an unneeded comma. If those four words were a clause
or a prepositional phrase, a comma would be used.
This
comma separates a direct quote from its attribution. Where's the comma?
INSIDE the quotation marks!
Here's
a pair of commas that are used to set off a parenthetical expression,
"after all," which works here as a way of adding emphasis.
This
sentence consists of two independent clauses joined by the coordinating
conjunction "and." A comma goes before the conjunction.
This
comma separates a paraphrase from the attribution.
Here's
a prepositional phrase of more than four words introducing the sentence,
and so we put a comma after it.
A
direct quote before the attribution is set off by a comma.
"With"
is a preposition, and so we have a prepositional phrase that's more
than four words and introducing the sentence. That means we need a comma.
Here's
our very common use of the comma, separating a quote from the attribution
that follows it.
That
word with an "-ing" at the end is a present participal and
it's after the verb, and so we set it off from the rest of the sentence
with a comma.
The
phrase starting with the word "after" offers parenthetical
information and so is set off with a comma. An alternate reading is
that it's a nonessential phrase.
When
we have a complete date (month, day and year), we set the year off with
commas. There would be no commas if we only had the month and year.
This
sentence structure is convoluted, but you can see two independent clauses
joined by a conjunction, which means that we need to use a comma.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - This is the way the world might end: A genetically engineered pathogen is released, debris from an erupting “supervolcano” blocks the sun or scientists in the biggest "bioerror" of them all accidentally trigger a matter-squeezing "big bang." The demise of civilization has been predicted since it began, but the odds of keeping Planet Earth alive and well are getting worse amid a breakneck pace of scientific advances, according to Martin Rees, Britain's honorary astronomer royal. Rees calculates that the odds of an apocalyptic disaster striking Earth have risen to about 50 percent from 20 percent a hundred years ago. The 60-year-old scientist, author of the recently published “Our Final Hour,” says science is advancing in a far more unpredictable and potentially dangerous pattern than ever before. He lists as mankind's biggest threats: nuclear terrorism, deadly engineered viruses, rogue machines and genetic engineering that could alter human character. All of those could result from innocent error or the action of a single malevolent individual. By 2020, an instance of bioterror or bioerror will have killed a million people, Rees contends. “There is a growing gap between doors that are open and doors that should be open,” Rees, a professor at Britain's Cambridge University, said in a recent interview. The cosmologist concedes that natural disasters have always loomed—so-called supervolanoes could explode at any time, and asteroids could slam into the planet, causing massive climate changes—but says the most frightening risks are probably man-made. “A hundred years ago, the nuclear threat wasn't even predicted ... but that threat still hasn't gone away,” he said. The arms race, after all, was fueled by science, and the field has a responsibility to inform a wide public of the risks in deciding how to apply scientific breakthroughs, he added. “For the first time ever, human nature itself isn't fixed. Biotech drugs and genetic engineering are empowering individuals more than ever before,” Rees said. With rapidly advancing DNA technology, “even a single person could cause a disaster,” Rees warned, noting that the United States, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and anthrax scare, is well aware of this threat.
|