Can you tell me the difference in meaning between these two
sentences?
1. Olya entered
the chapel and approached the altar where Dima knelt with his wife.
2. Olya entered the chapel and approached
the altar, where Dima knelt with his wife.
The only difference is the comma—what does that little comma
do? It separates the sentence into two portions, which serves to inform the
reader that the second portion of the sentence is adding some extra information.
The comma, in essence, informs the reader that the second part of the sentence
is not necessary to understand the first part.
Without the comma, the sentence implies that that last
portion of the sentence (“where Dima knelt with his wife”) is clarifying the
first part, that the sentence wouldn’t be complete without it. If that last
portion of the sentence is necessary,
then that implies that the “altar” that was mentioned needs to be distinguished
from some other altar in the area.
In other words, here is what each of our example sentences
above is really saying:
1. Olya entered
the chapel. There were several altars, and she approached the one where Dima
knelt with his wife.
2. Olya entered
the chapel and approached the only altar. Dima knelt beside the altar with his
wife.
See the difference? Without the comma, the implication is
that the second portion of the sentence is necessary to clarify the first
portion. With the comma, the implication is that the second portion of the
sentence is extra information which isn’t needed to understand the first
portion.
Imagine that you and a friend are headed to the movies, when
you get a call that you need to stop and meet a secret agent to receive a
package related to your next secret agent mission. (We’re all imagining that
you have a very interesting life.) You tell your friend that you have to stop
to meet this agent at the park.
Now, how you phrase this statement would depend on how many
parks are in the area, right? If there were only one park in the whole town,
then you might simply say:
“We have to stop
at the park.”
Since there’s only one park in the area, your friend would
know what you mean. However, if there were several parks in the area, you would
need to add additional information to clarify which park you meant:
“We have to stop
at the park where you met my sister.”
See how it works? The phrase “where you met my sister”
serves as clarification—without that information, it would not be clear which
park you meant. Since the information is necessary,
it should not be separated from the noun it clarifies (park) by a comma. If you
did so, the sentence would read strangely:
“We have to stop
at the park, where you met my sister.”
Placing a comma here implies that you are adding extra
information, which in this case seems rather nonsensical. Why would you
mention, apropos of nothing, that your friend met your sister in the park? Your
friend would know that. With the comma, the sentence essentially means this:
“We have to stop
at the park. By the way, you met my sister at this park.”
That just reads like particularly awkward maid-and-butler dialog. Imagine your friend looking at you in confusion, and saying, “Yeah, I
know that. Why are you telling me?”
Remember: clarifying information should usually not be separated
from the word it clarifies by a comma.
No comments:
Post a Comment