Language desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 23[edit]

Comma between clauses[edit]

Could anybody with a good grasp of punctuation please advise on a couple of cases?

I've made an edit inserting a comma into "If 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ = x, then adding 0 to both sides gives...", which has been almost instantly reverted with a comment that it "needlessly breaks flow". Am I really so wrong in this case?
In another edit, I've inserted a comma between two independent clauses, both of which depend on another clause, like this: "..., where A is something of B, and C is ...", judging that without this comma, it is first incorrectly perceived as "A is something of B and C". This was also reverted with a claim "you are simply wrong". Is the comma really out of place in this case?

— Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with your commas 100%. I would have made those same edits, and would have contested those reversions by reverting them myself. If the first reverter persisted, I'd have gone to the talk page and explained my reasoning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your resistance to addressing these issues in the correct venue (namely, the article talk-page, where other editors of the article can weigh in on the discussion) is incredibly strange. The first comma is completely optional. My view is that, as a matter of writing style, it needlessly breaks the flow in such a short sentence; different authors may disagree. If you started a discussion on the article talk page then we would be able to discover whether editors of that article have opinions on the matter. With respect to the second point, in context the elements something, B, and C have meanings, and the mis-reading you're proposing is completely implausible. Moreover, the "where" binds both clauses: it is "where A is something of B and [where] C is something else", and inserting a comma breaks this. Given the length of the sentence, there is a reasonable case to be made that the whole paragraph should be rewritten, e.g., to place the definition of Bernoulli numbers before they are used. But again the place to discuss that would be on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no horse in this race, but I would make two points in support of the OP's decision to raise the matter here rather than on the article talk page. Firstly, the regulars on this ref desk are grammarians, and are more likely to be able to pronounce authoritatively on the matter than the people who visit the article's talk page. Secondly, I've given up on article talk pages as a place for discussing the improvement of articles. The traffic is simply too light. Many's the time I've raised issues on article talk pages and received not one single reply. Where I have received replies, they often take months or even years to appear. All things considered, the language ref desk is indeed the correct place to raise this issue. --Viennese Waltz 19:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any dispute that involves the article should be resolved in the first instance by trying to establish a consensus of editors of the article. The article talk-page in question is watched by many mathematics editors, and has held robust discussions on several topics within the past year. Also, these are not questions of grammar. --JBL (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, for the reasons I have stated. Article talk pages are broken, and are not suitable places to resolve disputes on articles. And I withdraw the word "grammarians" and replace it with "experts on correct punctuation". --Viennese Waltz 07:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My opinion as a former copyeditor and editor: The comma in the first sentence is not "completely optional"; your edit was completely justified, since a comma after an introductory conditional clause is to be expected in written English. In the second sentence, a comma to separate a pair of parallel dependent clauses is indeed optional, but your rationale for including one in this case (to prevent misreading) is persuasive. Deor (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Deor, do you mean my edits or JBL's (to whom you are replying)? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I was replying to you and referring to your edits. Deor (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Deor is agreeing with you, but they are wrong that a comma in a sentence of the form "if X then Y" is "to be expected". Both the comma and non-comma forms are common in English, including mathematical English. As an example, the New Yorker article I was reading this morning contains the following sentence: "If you think you're burned out, you're burned out, and if you don't think you're burned out you're burned out." This sentence is punctuated in a completely acceptable way (and there are perhaps several other completely valid ways it could be punctuated, depending on the style of the individual author). --JBL (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, I've raised these issues here to clarify English grammar and usage for myself. I'm not a native speaker and not a philologist, so I tend to prefer more structured language, but wanted to get some feedback/opinions/references from language professionals. I'm glad that finally you've expressed your opinion in more informative words than before, but I also would like to hear what others think (on this language topic, not on our conflict). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time you raised a concrete question about these edits (except for your wrong assertion on my talk-page about the naming of axes), so of course it is the first time I responded concretely! --JBL (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I had written these sentences myself, I would have used commas in these two spots, and on encountering the versions without commas I might have made the same improvements as you did. (I consider both improvements, especially the second one). Some editors tend to revert what they think of as needless tinkering, just because they feel it was unnecessary, not because the reverted edit actually made the article worse. This, however, ~~violates~~ goes against the recommendations of the Revert only when necessary ~~policy~~ essay. --Lambiam 07:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite is an essay, and most decidedly not a policy. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I disagree very sharply with that essay. It is simply wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are MANY users of Wikipedia who believe that it's okay to revert a well-written, well-referenced, multiparagraph edit because it contained one spelling error, or similar kinds of trivial fixes. That essay is merely a reminder that it would be better to not do that, and instead fix the minor error. --Jayron 32 11:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also lots of editors who will make a complicated edit or series of edits, changing lots of things in the article, some in trivial ways and others in potentially problematic ways, and expect anyone who objects to go through and figure out which of the changes are problematic. Onh onh. Not doing that. Go back to the status quo ante, and then discuss the changes con calma. -Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody! A follow-up question...

I've checked some style manuals, and while it's difficult to find specific recommendations about the second case, everything that I saw about the first one seems to support the need of the comma. In particular, The Chicago Manual of Style (6.24: Commas with introductory dependent clauses(subscription required)) says: "When a dependent clause precedes the main, independent clause, it should be followed by a comma. A dependent clause is generally introduced by a subordinating conjunction such as if, because, or when" (the examples there omit the word then, but all include the comma). Regarding mathematics, the AMS Style Guide (p. 82 in the PDF) also has an explicit prescription:

Use a comma in if/then constructions.

We infer that if $\varphi ^{in}$ is small enough, then $\varphi (t)$ is global in time.
If $x<0$ , then $x=y$ .

Notice the comma in the second example, even though it is as short as it could be.

So the question: does anybody know any reputable sources that prescribe or at least recommend omitting commas in any of the two cases discussed in this topic? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No (and no one has asserted the contrary). However, Wikipedia does have a quite clear policy WP:CONSENSUS about what the correct venue is for discussing contentious changes to articles (hint: it's the same place I've been asking you to go to since this began) -- I would have thought that a person very intent on rule-following might be interested in that! --JBL (talk)

Anyone who is interested in an article will have it on her watchlist, and edits to the talk page will appear on the watchlist also. It is impossible to curate the page if discussion is not centralised (i.e. on its talkpage). To obtain a local consensus you need to post on the talkpage. Occasionally, when a specialist point is raised and nobody knows the answer recourse may be had to the experts on the reference desk. The response is then fed back into the talkpage discussion. 84.9.101.54 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In "We infer that if X, then Y", I'd add a comma after that. —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]