For English dorks.

[Little_15]

I asked my English teacher this question, we argued about it (in a friendly way), and then she went on to poll other English teachers at my school...

So, I'm interested in your opinion. Which of these is correct?

a) <u>All Quiet On The Western Front</u> by Erich Maria Remarque is a tragic novel.

b) <u>All Quiet On The Western Front</u>, by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.

Edit: I also think that the better way to write that is: "Erich Maria Remarque's <u>All Quiet On The Western Front</u> is a tragic novel." But that's beside the point right now.

[redbaron]

I would say B. But I'm not really sure.

Michael

[Carol]

I'd be inclined to go for B. To be honest, I don't know shit about all the grammatical terms, but instinctually, I would go with B because I feel that the phrase "by Erich Maria Remarque" ought to be enclosed by commas.

[MotherLucifer]

I would say B because "By Erich Maria Remarque" is an adjective clause, or someting to that effect. Therefore it gets commas.

[devnull]

i'm an english dork but my achilles heel is comma splicing, so i'm a bad person to ask.

but i'd have to say, "B."

[lollipop gestapo]

b.

[jenniferblaufrau]

B is correct. Since "by Erich Maria Remarque" is a nonrestrictive clause, you must set it off with commas.

The woman who lives in the white house drives a red car. (restrictive, no commas, meaning is restricted by "who lives in the white house")

Ms. Miller, who lives in the white house, drives a red car. (nonrestrictive, commas, meaning is not restricted by information in clause)

These are restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers in clause form: The convertible that had its top down was mine (restrictive); The convertible, which had its top down, was mine (nonrestrictive). The restrictive clause in the first sentence specifies which convertible is under discussion; the nonrestrictive clause in the second sentence merely adds interesting but not crucial detail about the only convertible under discussion. Using or omitting the commas makes a difference, reflecting as it does the differing intonation patterns the spoken language provides for restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers.

http://www.bartleby.com/68/32/5132.html
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaClauses__Restrictive_and_Nonrest.htm

[swirly]

b

And I'm an Eng Lang and Lit graduate! (historical yes, but what difference does that make!)

swirly

xxx

[Little_15]

I say b because "by Erich Maria Remarque" is non-essential unless there's more than one book called <u>All Quiet On The Western Front</u>. She says a because commas interrupt the flow of the sentence.

[can't get right]

I can't believe all the people that chose b.


That is so wrong.


It's A.

[can't get right]

I'm just being an ass.

[RapidFixer]

Originally posted by Little_15
I say b because "by Erich Maria Remarque" is non-essential unless there's more than one book called <u>All Quiet On The Western Front</u>. She says a because commas interrupt the flow of the sentence.

That's my reasoning. I vote for B also.
Though this is probably one of those cases where many people would accept either in the "real world" outside the classroom.

[tully]

What Ms. Blaufrau said.

[inira]

Originally posted by jenniferblaufrau
B is correct. Since "by Erich Maria Remarque" is a nonrestrictive clause, you must set it off with commas.usually, a clause contains a subject and predicate. not the case here.

this is not an apposition.
an example for an apposition is the following:


<b>All Quiet On The Western Front, the most famous work by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.</b>

this is an appositon (that could use commas). this means that the apposition (i.e., "the most famous work by Erich Maria Remarque") could be substituted functionally for the subject (in this case) of the main clause.

<b>
The right choice is A. </b>

[Pan.]

A is definetely correct.....


B is a perfect example of "Comma Abuse"

you don't need the comma after the title of the book....I have never seen comma's put after a title like that....


Its just so not B....believe me....

[Meesh]

Originally posted by can't get right
I'm just being an ass.

Such a bad girl ;)

[Pan.]

actually I think this is the correct way to write it:

All Quiet On The Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.


You can underline the title but I know from many teachers that they hate to see things underlined on typed papers..I would put the title of the book in italics....

you don't need the comma after the title... its like me writing:

The red painting, by Tom Smith, is amazing....

it should be: The red painting by Tom Smith, is amazing...........................

...............

Oh shit....now I don't know...

I am stumped.....

I really hate commas

[Pan.]

now I think B could work..........

but A doesn't look wrong either.....

I am obsessed with grammar so this is going to bother me all day....

[tully]

Originally posted by iieee
actually I think this is the correct way to write it:

All Quiet On The Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.


no no no!!!

That is a comma splice!

Nonrestrictive clauses do not limit or define; they merely add something to the sentence. They do not need to be independent clauses. The commas in this sense are not abused or extra but introduce a parenthetical statement. Take it from the English teachers!

[Carol]

Originally posted by iieee
it should be: The red painting by Tom Smith, is amazing..

Again, I have no grasp of grammatical terms, but that sounds wrong.

[veganboy]

I'm not sure about the proper punctuation for a research paper, but if I were writing for purposes of my own personal expression, I would use the first choice if I do not want the reader(s) to pause during the sentence and the second if I want the reader(s) to pause before the word by and after the word Remarque. It all depends on the rhythm of the paragraph as a whole, which would depend on the type of mood that I'm going for.

However, just using one comma or the other (i.e. iieee's example) sounds awful to me.

[inira]

Originally posted by iieee
All Quiet On The Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel. WRONG.

[Pan.]

ok I believe you guys.....

I was typing that second post in here and then I realized that I was wrong.....

lots of educated people are misusing those things at my school then.....

[Stu52]

I would definitely go with A.

All this stuff about "nonrestricted clauses" is irrelevant, because, as inira pointed out, a clause of any kind always has a subject and a predicate.

"by X" is as simple a prepositional phrase as you could ever hope to come by. Prepositional phrases are not offset by commas.

[tully]

Originally posted by Stu52
I would definitely go with A.

All this stuff about "nonrestricted clauses" is irrelevant, because, as inira pointed out, a clause of any kind always has a subject and a predicate.


NO

An independent clause has a subject and predicate. A dependent clause does not. Nonrestrive clauses can be either.

If you don't trust me, go read Strunk & White.

[Stu52]

Originally posted by tully
NO

An independent clause has a subject and predicate. A dependent clause does not. Nonrestrive clauses can be either.


Without getting needlessly catty, what you've just said is wrong. A clause, independent or dependent, always has a subject and a predicate (which contains a verb). That's the defintion of a clause.

As 8th grade English teachers love to say, "an independent clause can stand by itself, but a dependent clause cannot." Any clause, however, will always have a verb. A group of words (or a "syntactic unit" or "syntagm" as we like to call them in linguistics) is simply a phrase. The particular phrase "by X" is a prepositional phrase, consisting of a preposition and its nominal complement ("object of a preposition)".

The rules of nonrestrictive clauses are only applicable to clauses. Simple phrases are governed by different rules. The application of clause rules to phrases may result in the overuse of commas.

[tully]

Originally posted by Stu52
As 8th grade English teachers love to say, "an independent clause can stand by itself, but a dependent clause cannot."

Yes, I know that. Because I am one.

In the confusion of appositives and parenthetical statements and non-restrictive clauses, the argument has become muddled. To answer Little_15's original question, I stand by the reasoning that either A or B is correct, but I would go with B more often that not.

Commas ARE used with nonessential clauses AND phrases. The rule fits; my wording was incorrect.

[Carol]

Originally posted by tully
Yes, I know that. Because I am one.

In the confusion of appositives and parenthetical statements and non-restrictive clauses, the argument has become muddled. To answer Little_15's original question, I stand by the reasoning that either A or B is correct, but I would go with B more often that not.

Commas ARE used with nonessential clauses AND phrases. The rule fits; my wording was incorrect.

yeah! don't be a tool sonny, listen to the schoolmarm!

[Little_15]

Nonessential is different from nonrestrictive, yes/no? So how restrictive it is isn't relevant to my arguement, which is that it's nonessential. Right?

[AngieDickinson]

I'd definitely say B. That's how I'd write that sentence. But I'm also a comma whore. All hail the comma!! Such a cool punctuation mark.

------> ,

[tully]

Originally posted by Little_15
Nonessential is different from nonrestrictive, yes/no? So how restrictive it is isn't relevant to my arguement, which is that it's nonessential. Right?

My head's going to explode!

Essential & restrictive and non-essential & non-restrictive are used interchangeably. Your argument is sound and stays the same. Knowing the author's name does not change the meaning of the sentence, because, as you said, there is only one All Quiet on the Western Front. Now, if we were talking about The Invisible Man, things would be different.

[lacuna]

I would definately say A



It sounds odd when you say the B version out loud, as if Captain Kirk is reciting it.

[tully]

Originally posted by lacuna
I would definately say A



It sounds odd when you say the B version out loud, as if Captain Kirk is reciting it.

;l

Now he's stuck in my head saying it.

[Red]

Let's turn to the authority Bill Bryson for an answer:

Both of the following examples are correctly punctuated. "John Fowles's novel _The Collector_ was a bestseller." "John Fowles's first novel, _The Collector_, was a bestseller." In the first example the name of the novel is restrictive because The Collector is only one of several novels by Fowles. In the second example it is nonrestrictive because only one novel can be the author's first one. We could delete _The Collector_ from the second example without spoiling the sense of the sentence, but not from the first. When a name or title can be removed, it should be set off with commas. When it cannot be removed, the use of commas is wrong.

Here's another piece of info from Bryson that I found interesting as an English dork:
Words such as moreover, meanwhile, and nevertheless have traditionally taken commas, but the practice has become increasingly discretionary over the years. In Britain they have been more freely abandoned than in America.

(I was taught to always give interpolated words a comma).

[tully]

Originally posted by Red
When a name or title can be removed, it should be set off with commas. When it cannot be removed, the use of commas is wrong.



;k

[devnull]

hey tully, i made cookies tonight. i think you deserve some.

:)

[tully]

Originally posted by devnull
hey tully, i made cookies tonight. i think you deserve some.

:)

:)

Only if I get to share them with you and your girlfriend! While drinking milk!

:O

[devnull]

Originally posted by tully
:)

Only if I get to share them with you and your girlfriend! While drinking milk!

:O


:O [post22]

[inira]

Originally posted by Red
Let's turn to the authority Bill Bryson for an answer:

Both of the following examples are correctly punctuated. "John Fowles's novel _The Collector_ was a bestseller." "John Fowles's first novel, _The Collector_, was a bestseller." In the first example the name of the novel is restrictive because The Collector is only one of several novels by Fowles. In the second example it is nonrestrictive because only one novel can be the author's first one. We could delete _The Collector_ from the second example without spoiling the sense of the sentence, but not from the first. When a name or title can be removed, it should be set off with commas. When it cannot be removed, the use of commas is wrong.
this is totally in alignment with my previous post in this thread. the 2nd of Red's examples is an apposition and as such marked by commas (if no commas, an 'and' would be used in many cases).

apposition:
"John Fowles's first novel, The Collector, was a beststeller."

The example given was not an apposition and thus no commas should be set (->option A).



Red should have offered up his/her explicit verdict. since Red didn't, i translate: Red also indicates Option A (no commas) as the correct one.


oscar night:
"and i also also thanks to stu52 for his contribution in this thread." ;) <-- proof of dorkiness

[devnull]

you just want some cookies (i know you).

[raspberryspark]

Without all the fancy words----

I prefer A simply because B just looks too choppy. The whole restrictive/essential blah blah stuff just seems to be stuff that really isn't that relevant. It just seems that when you are writing a sentence about a book, the author is relevant. Heh, that's my simple reasoning. I liked iieee's example "The red painting, by Tom Smith, is whatever he said". It just doesn't need those damn commas! By the way, "comma abuse" is something I'm very guilty of, and I wouldn't even put commas there! That says something...

And I totally agree with lacuna about the Captain Kirk comment. ;l

[jenniferblaufrau]

Nonrestrictive clause or nonrestrictive phrase -- it doesn't matter. If it's nonrestrictive (clause or phrase), you set it off with commas. If the information is ancillary, you normally set it off with commas.

Consider:

<i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i>, which was written by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.

Also consider how you hear this sentence in your head, how you say it. Do you say: "<i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i> (slight pause), by Erich Maria Remarque, (slight pause) is a tragic novel." or do you say it all in one long string?

[tully]

Jen, hold me.

[Stu52]

Originally posted by jenniferblaufrau
Also consider how you hear this sentence in your head, how you say it. Do you say: "<i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i> (slight pause), by Erich Maria Remarque, (slight pause) is a tragic novel." or do you say it all in one long string?

That part is called breathing. :D

[jenniferblaufrau]

*holds tully tenderly and whispers sweet, hot grammar nerd nothings into her pretty little ears*

[inira]

Originally posted by jenniferblaufrau
<i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i>, which was written by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel. of course, the above is correct. it's a sub-clause.
which = subject
written = predicative
here the commas are correctly set.
the rules that you are bringing in here to demonstrate the correctness of Option B don't fit. quote the fitting rule, please. until then...


the correct answer is still Option A.



talking about a loss in credibility...

[behindmyeyes]

Originally posted by jenniferblaufrau
<i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i>, which was written by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.

Also consider how you hear this sentence in your head, how you say it. Do you say: "<i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i> (slight pause), by Erich Maria Remarque, (slight pause) is a tragic novel." or do you say it all in one long string? [/B]

I wanna say two things.

1) Deciding grammar based on how things sound when said out loud is not only inaccurate but dangerous. If this were how it worked, a lot more of us would be spelling nuclear "nookyalur" after listening to Pres. Bush, for only one example.

2) I really really love this thread.

[devnull]

inira --- nope. though i wasn't sturdy on the technical rules when i first posted, after reading this thread and quickly scanning the MLA handbook it's fairly obvious that jennifer and tully and red are right: if it can be removed, put commas around it.

All Quiet On The Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque, is a tragic novel.

you can say (without losing the sense of the sentence)

All Quiet On The Western Front is a tragic novel.

therefore the "by Erich Maria Remarque" gets commas.

[jenniferblaufrau]

This really isn't that hard.

<i>Lesson 364 - Punctuation - Commas

Use commas to set off nonrestrictive clauses and phrases. Nonrestrictive clauses and phrases are modifiers <b>that can be omitted without changing the meaning of the main clause.</b></i> If "by Erich Maria Remarque" is omitted, will the meaning change? No. Therefore, commas should be used.

I have a minor in English; I worked as a copyeditor for the top textbook publishing company in the United States and dealt with this very issue hundreds of times (and had my work checked by two nit-picky grammarians with a million years of experience); I'm an English teacher now; and I checked a few sources just to make sure before I answered this question. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the correct way to punctuate the sentence, and I really don't give a flip whether I've lost credibility with you. A> You started being a jerk for no reason. B> You're WRONG!

[swirly]

Look guys he/she just wants to know...

Less of the technical which is scaring people! How you speak is not how you write formal work...how many articles in professional publications have you read that are written in speech form? Very few if any...

There are rules...

b is correct...

I state again...

swirly

xxx

[inira]

Originally posted by jenniferblaufrau
I really don't give a flip whether I've lost credibility with you. A> You started being a jerk for no reason. and you didn't know what a clause was? one would think that with those credentials one should be able to quote the fitting rules. that's the credibility issue i was hinting at.

[jenniferblaufrau]

Originally posted by behindmyeyes
1) Deciding grammar based on how things sound when said out loud is not only inaccurate but dangerous. If this were how it worked, a lot more of us would be spelling nuclear "nookyalur" after listening to Pres. Bush, for only one example.

I agree for the most part, but this really illustrates the point that "by Erich Maria Remarque" is virtually parenthetical, completely nonessential, and, hence, in dire need of commas.

[tully]

Originally posted by inira
and you didn't know what a clause was?

Actually, you're referring to me here (are you losing credibility now for not being able to tell the posters apart?), and you're referring incorrectly. I was assuming that YOU didn't know what you were talking about and were insisting that a nonrestrictive clause had to be an independent one. Of course I know what a clause is; I could teach it in my sleep.

We've proven our point. I could cite the 3 manuals and 5 textbooks I've consulted, JBF has been citing her sources, and others have weighed in with links and info. Unless there is a mass nonrestrictive phrase conspiracy going on here, YOU'RE wrong. You have not proven against what we've said at all.

By the way, Larisa IS looking for the "technical" side of it -- which is NOT irrelevant, to us or to her. Hello! The title is "English dorks" ... you're going to get REALLY dorky answers here!

It's scaring me how many people are saying, "Those rules are irrevelant; alll those commas just look weird!"

[tully]

I may be a Grammar Queen, but I still double post!

[Little_15]

Originally posted by tully
Now, if we were talking about The Invisible Man, things would be different.

There's more than one?

[tully]

Originally posted by Little_15
There's more than one?

Yeah. There's Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man, which is a classic novel about race relations in 50's America, and H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man, which is about, well, a see-through guy. THAT'S a case where the author would be an ESSENTIAL detail.

(The novels were the source of a hilarious mishap on an episode of Felicity ... er, not that I ever watched that show or anything.)

[RapidFixer]

Teeeeeeeeeeechnically, Ellison's novel is Invisible Man and Wells' is The Invisible Man. A small difference -one so small it does cause confusion and would require no commas.


...and I still can't believe people are doubting the validity of B. It's a rule!

[tully]

Originally posted by RapidFixer
Teeeeeeeeeeechnically, Ellison's novel is Invisible Man and Wells' is The Invisible Man.

Well fucking shoot me in the head, then.

[RapidFixer]

Originally posted by tully
Well fucking shoot me in the head, then.

Did you mean, "Well, fucking shoot me in the head, then?" :p

[tully]

How amusing. No, really.

[devnull]

Originally posted by RapidFixer
Did you mean, "Well, fucking shoot me in the head, then?" :p

wow, you're a real bitch. congratulations.

:s

[RapidFixer]

Originally posted by devnull
wow, you're a real bitch. congratulations.

:s

Well, it was a joke in the spirit of the picky nature of this thread. I think Tully got it. But thanks for the name-calling.

[tully]

Originally posted by RapidFixer
Well, it was a joke in the spirit of the picky nature of this thread. I think Tully got it. But thanks for the name-calling.

I was initially pretty annoyed by it, but I'm fine now. After all, you gave me a perfect setup to curl into devnull's lap for comfort!

[devnull]

:O
;o

(sorry for calling names)

[RapidFixer]

All is forgiven.
Forgiven is all.
All, forgiven is.

You choose! :D