Is comma needed?

Forums: English, Punctuation
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting.

Is a comma after 'Bill' optional or necessary? I feel it's not necessary.

Many thanks.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 978 • Replies: 13

No top replies

I think that either is correct, according to your emphasis. There is a very slight difference in meaning when you add the comma. With the comma the emphasis is on Bill. Without, the emphasis is on "constantly interrupting".

0 Replies

It's kind of an awkward sentence with or without the comma.

I think I'd recommend something like:

Bill's constant interruptions irritated me.

or

I was irritated by the fact that Bill was constantly interrupting me.

0 Replies

Or: "I was irritated by Bill's constant interruptions."

0 Replies

I think it's correct without the comma. With the comma it sounds awful.

0 Replies

With the comma, you stress irritation by Bill. Without the comma, you stress irritation by the interruptions. If you use the apostrophe with Bill (Bill's) as shown in some of the posts, the emphasis is automatically placed on the interruptions.

0 Replies

flyboy804 wrote:

With the comma, you stress irritation by Bill. Without the comma, you stress irritation by the interruptions. If you use the apostrophe with Bill (Bill's) as shown in some of the posts, the emphasis is automatically placed on the interruptions.

I believe you're correct.

I was irritated by Bill, who was constantly irritating. By adding 'who, IMO, the emphasis is clearly on Bill.

0 Replies

I wish I was better at English but the sentence seems incomplete. Shouldn't it say what is interrupted?

Edit: I do realize that was not the question asked. The sentence just seems awkward to me.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

I wish I was better at English but the sentence seems incomplete. Shouldn't it say what is interrupted?

Edit: I do realize that was not the question asked. The sentence just seems awkward to me.

I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting. (Shouldn't it say what is interrupted? IMO, it's not necessary. Look at the sentence below.)

Bill is constantly interrupting. (We don't need to add anything. It's clear that Bill is interrupting.)

0 Replies

Interrupting what though? The weather forecast, the meeting, a phone conversation? Maybe it just seems incomplete because the sentence does
not say what is being interrupted. If the sentence were in a story then it would probably make more sense to me.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

Interrupting what though? The weather forecast, the meeting, a phone conversation? Maybe it just seems incomplete because the sentence does
not say what is being interrupted. If the sentence were in a story then it would probably make more sense to me.

I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting us when we were talking.
Now, is the comma necessary? (That's the main point.)

0 Replies

I am not exactly the one to ask since my grammar is not great. I would not use a comma in that sentence though.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

I am not exactly the one to ask since my grammar is not great. I would not use a comma in that sentence though.

I believe the following reply by 'Flyboy' is correct.

With a comma, you stress irritation by Bill. Without the comma, you stress irritation by the interruptions. If you use the apostrophe with Bill (Bill's) as shown in some of the posts, the emphasis is automatically placed on the interruptions.

0 Replies

It is almost possible to have it both ways: though it is not common in spoken English, it is perfectly common in written English and grammatically correct to write "I was irritated by Bill's constant interrupting." That is, you can use the possessive form of "Bill" without changing "interrupting" to its noun form because, in this particular sentence, the whole phrase "constant interrupting" is a gerund and thus functions as a noun anyway.

0 Replies

Is comma needed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know