1 Topic by Dirk B. (edited by Dirk B. 2018-06-08 21:41:54)

Topic: another comma question

Time to see if there's a consensus on this one:

Is the second comma below (after the word epithet) required? I think it doesn't belong because the name of the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, is mandatory for understanding which epithet is being referred to. Or am I applying the wrong comma rule? (This is about a future society where the Roman Empire has been resurrected, hence the name Caligula.)

Although it took years for Caligula to be recognized for his brilliance, among the many side effects is that the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, which had tormented Caligula throughout his youth, became an honorific awarded for extraordinary accomplishments in any field, similar to the coveted Noble Prize of the late second and early third millennia.

Thanks
Dirk

Quote Post 1

2 Reply by Sideman (edited by Sideman 2018-06-08 23:37:20)

Re: another comma question

Hi Dirk,

If the mid-sentence reference applies to only one possible person/thing/instance, a comma is not needed. If the reference applies to a possible plurality of those things, commas are needed. However, if you use commas, you need one before *AND* after the referenced person/place/thing.

Example:
My wife Diana is a great singer.  (She really is a great singer!)
Here, it is assumed I have but one wife (which I do!), thus commas are not needed. This references a singular person in that position (my wife). Thus, there is no doubt about whom I am referencing.

My son, Scott, is a great soccer player.
Here, I have more than one son (a plurality), thus the commas are needed to inform that Scott is not my only son, but the one referenced here. However,you need a comma before *AND* after the name. Just an opening comma, mid-sentence, is incorrect.

In the example you cite, I think you need commas before and after as you seem to imply there are other epithets in addition to  Bastardus Minusculus epithet.

You do not need a comma in front of epithet.

Hope this helps. Good luck with your writing!

Alan

Quote Post 2

Re: another comma question

Dirk B. wrote:

Time to see if there's a consensus on this one:

Is the second comma below (after the word epithet) required? I think it doesn't belong because the name of the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, is mandatory for understanding which epithet is being referred to. Or am I applying the wrong comma rule? (This is about a future society where the Roman Empire has been resurrected, hence the name Caligula.)

Although it took years for Caligula to be recognized for his brilliance, among the many side effects is that the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, which had tormented Caligula throughout his youth, became an honorific awarded for extraordinary accomplishments in any field, similar to the coveted Noble Prize of the late second and early third millennia.

Thanks
Dirk

You could rearrange it to eliminate any doubt: "Caligula's peers called him Bastardus Minusculus in his youth. However, once his brilliance was recognized, the epithet became associated with a great honor similar to the Nobel Prize during the late second and third millennia." or such.
Take care. Vern

Quote Post 3

Re: another comma question

Dirk B. wrote:

Time to see if there's a consensus on this one:

Is the second comma below (after the word epithet) required? I think it doesn't belong because the name of the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, is mandatory for understanding which epithet is being referred to. Or am I applying the wrong comma rule? (This is about a future society where the Roman Empire has been resurrected, hence the name Caligula.)

Although it took years for Caligula to be recognized for his brilliance, among the many side effects is that the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, which had tormented Caligula throughout his youth, became an honorific awarded for extraordinary accomplishments in any field, similar to the coveted Noble Prize of the late second and early third millennia.

Thanks

Dirk

The comma after “epithet” is wrong. 
However, I would take another stab at the sentence.  It’s convoluted.  Among its many problems, it contains irrelevant information.  For example, “that it took years for his brilliance to be recognized” is irrelevant to the point of the sentence.   The relevant information, is that he is brilliant.  Also, you are implying that the honorific is a side effect of the fact it took “many years for his brilliance to be recognized.”  Which is not correct.  The “side effect” (which I would argue is the wrong term) is a result of his “brilliance.”  But there are more problems than that, which is why I would start over on it.   (While you are at it, you can delete everything after the word “Prize” - also irrelevant to the point of the sentence.)

Quote Post 4

5 Reply by Dirk B. (edited by Dirk B. 2018-06-09 01:27:08)

Re: another comma question

Alan, I found examples online from a grammar blogger that say your examples are the opposite of what they should be. If you have one wife named Diana, then her name is nonessential to understanding the sentence and requires commas. If you have one son named Scott, that also requires commas. If you have multiple sons, then his name is essential to understanding the sentence, so no commas.

That means, in my case, that the name of the epithet is essential to understanding the sentence as there are many epithets, so no comma.

I'll probably forget these rules in a week and start doing it wrong again.

Thanks
Dirk

Quote Post 5

Re: another comma question

Dirk B. wrote:

Time to see if there's a consensus on this one:

Is the second comma below (after the word epithet) required? I think it doesn't belong because the name of the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, is mandatory for understanding which epithet is being referred to. Or am I applying the wrong comma rule? (This is about a future society where the Roman Empire has been resurrected, hence the name Caligula.)

Although it took years for Caligula to be recognized for his brilliance, among the many side effects is that the epithet, Bastardus Minusculus, which had tormented Caligula throughout his youth, became an honorific awarded for extraordinary accomplishments in any field, similar to the coveted Noble Prize of the late second and early third millennia.

Thanks
Dirk

The first comma, after epithet, isn't necessary.  It reads fine as 'the epithet Bastardus Minusculus,' and you are right, when the adjective phrase, in this case 'Bastardus Minusculus, is essential to the noun, you don't have a comma; in fact, it's a solecism to have the comma. But the second comma is necessary, as if you take out the repositional phrse, the sentence makes sense.  '...the epithet Bastardus Minusculus became an honorific.  The prepositional phrse, then, is not essential, but adds information.

Quote Post 6