THe phrase is
" This is an alert black female patient, appropriate for stated chronologic age, who was in no acute distress."
Are there any commas needed?
THanks you!
Printable View
THe phrase is
" This is an alert black female patient, appropriate for stated chronologic age, who was in no acute distress."
Are there any commas needed?
THanks you!
Apart from the ones that are already there, you don't need any other commas.
I wouldn't have put any commas in if I had been writing this sentence - thought it is rather awkward grammatically. I think it is matter of choice not necessity.
I wouldn't have put any commas in if I had been writing this sentence - thought it is rather awkward grammatically. I think it is matter of choice not necessity.
The commas are necessary.
You should always use commas between adjectives = This is an alert, black, female patient etc.. The rest is correctQuote:
This is an alert black female patient, appropriate for stated chronologic age, who was in no acute distress."
Not quite. In this case, "female" is modifying "patient," "black" is modifying "female patient," and "alert" is modifying "black female patient." Commas between the adjectives are unnecessary. "Alert black female patient" is a perfectly acceptable noun phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamion
The punctuation in this sentence is fine. Period. The grammar is a bit sketchy, but the punctuation is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by ostrov
Female, black and alert are clearly used as adjectives in this sentence. According to your terrific site "Adjectives are words we use to describe a noun. They usually come before it:Quote:
Not quite. In this case, "female" is modifying "patient," "black" is modifying "female patient," and "alert" is modifying "black female patient." Commas between the adjectives are unnecessary. "Alert black female patient" is a perfectly acceptable noun phrase.
a big, red, boring book"
....
The question was - are commas needed. The answer is - they are not needed. The sentence makes sense and is acceptable without them. It may make better sense with them in but that does not mean they have to be there.
Read a good book about English if you don't understand Lindsay. It's hard to explain, but she is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamion
People, why are you arguing with the professional proofreader? I do this for a living.
"a big, red, boring book" is an entirely different case than "alert black female patient." Here's an alternative, and possibly clearer, explaination than the one I gave above:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamion
Can we say, "the alert but black patient"? "The black but female patient"? "The alert but female patient"? No. Then, we cannot put commas betwen the items. "Alert black female patient" is correctly punctuated, as it has no punctuation.Quote:
It would be folly, of course, to run more than two or three (at the most) adjectives together. Furthermore, when adjectives belong to the same class, they become what we call coordinated adjectives, and you will want to put a comma between them: the inexpensive, comfortable shoes. The rule for inserting the comma works this way: if you could have inserted a conjunction — and or but — between the two adjectives, use a comma. We could say these are "inexpensive but comfortable shoes," so we would use a comma between them (when the "but" isn't there). When you have three coordinated adjectives, separate them all with commas, but don't insert a comma between the last adjective and the noun (in spite of the temptation to do so because you often pause there)
They do have to be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BJ
The first comma is absolutely necessary, unless there was a second alert black female present who was not of appropriate stated chronological age, and the appositive "appropriate for stated chronologic age" was included in the sentence by the speaker/writer in order to clarify which female s/he was discussing. Somehow, I doubt this.Quote:
This is an alert black female patient, appropriate for stated chronologic age, who was in no acute distress.
The second comma is necessary to close the appositive. But even if the first comma were not there, the second comma would still]be desired according to most sets of punctuation rules.Quote:
Use a comma to set off parenthetical elements, as in "The Founders Bridge, which spans the Connecticut River, is falling down." By "parenthetical element," we mean a part of a sentence that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of that sentence. The parenthetical element is sometimes called "added information."
ALL COMMAS IN OSTROV'S VERSION OF THE SENTENCE ARE NECESSARY. NO MORE COMMAS ARE REQUIRED.
Thanks, Oddo :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddo
I would add that even these two commas wouldn't have been necessary if the phrase was given in one tense. And I agree that it is gramatically not correct, since present and past are used together - that is the main reason I would separate them with commas.
Thanks, you are very helpful, and the site is great!
No problem, Ostrov. Bless you for your punctuation discernment.
WOW - I always want to run the other way when I see that word 'professional' something or other :roll: And, in consequence, I was rather hoping that you would be wrong Линдзи. But, it is clear, you are absolutely right :lol: :lol: :lol: Even the UK's own Lynne Truss of 'Eats Shoots & Leaves' fame agrees - so thanks, I learnt something there :thumbs: < I hate these icons, but I just can't resist using 'em!Quote:
Originally Posted by Линдзи
btw - Let's suppose this was a dramatic piece, and that the audience might be expecting the patient to be unconscious, white, and male. Could the commas be used in order to add emphasis: to apply grammatical brakes to the flow of the piece :?: What I'm trying to say is, in the fight between grammar and style, who (could be 'which' - who knows) wins???Quote:
"This is an alert black female patient, appropriate for stated chronologic age, who was in no acute distress."
Because we want to learn something... I didnQuote:
People, why are you arguing with the professional proofreader? I do this for a living.
[quote=Kamion]Because we want to learn something... I didnQuote:
People, why are you arguing with the professional proofreader? I do this for a living.
[quote]Kamion wrote:
Quote:
People, why are you arguing with the professional proofreader? I do this for a living.
Because we want to learn something... I didn
Heeeellllpppppppppp :lol: - this thread is running away with my question .....
@Линдзи - Don't leave me now - I need to know, or at least, get an opinion :oQuote:
Originally Posted by майк
Completely :off: , sorry, but BTW Lindsay dearest, have you come across this Churchill quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Линдзи
"That is the sort of English up with which I will not put."?
That shows perfectly the need for a balance of style and technical correctness. Perhaps that helps my case in our earlier discussion?
Heh. Churchill really was funny wasn't he? But I think he really felt that way about English.. shame...
[quote=майк]Heeeellllpppppppppp :lol: - this thread is running away with my question .....
@Линдзи - Don't leave me now - I need to know, or at least, get an opinion :o[/quote:1tje6sus]Quote:
Originally Posted by "майк":1tje6sus
Heh. Yes, I've heard the Churchill quote, and yes...believe it or not...I am perfectly comfortable with breaking grammar and punctuation rules for dramatic effect. With caveats, of course. Please do allow me to get up on my soapbox and tell a parable.
My sister is an excellent equestrienne. She can ride any horse in just about any riding style, and do so correctly and gracefully. Yet she often, when we ride the trails around my family's farm, kicks off the stirrups, slouches across the horse's back, and generally lets her horse do whatever it wants to do. She can do this because she is an excellent rider. If she were to need to get the animal under control quickly, she could. And she's not getting into any bad habits by riding this way, because correct riding is so deeply engrained in her. But none of us would ever let one of the kids who comes out to take riding lessons get away with that sort of behavior! They need to learn the rules perfectly before they are allowed to break them.
That's exactly, to my mind, the way it is with writing. Many of the finest English-language writers frequently play fast and loose with linguistic convention. But they do so for reasons of personal expression and style. They do it to create a mood, to get across a particular idea. This sort of behavior should only be attempted, though, once one has a wholly solid foundation in proper writing. Believe me, a critical reader can tell the difference between stylistic "errors" and laziness. When Kurt Vonnegut excessively repeats a phrase, you know he's doing it to make a point. When a shoddy writer uses a cliche, though, it's obvious to a good reader that they do so out of laziness, ignorance or general lack of skill. It shows, it really does.
Okay, now that I've gotten all my pretentiousness out for the day, I'm going to go do some lesson planning... :D