Re: The Spanish painter, Velazquez [was Re: how to type]


Ross Howard wrote:
On 23 Mar 2006 21:29:38 -0800, "The Other Fran"
<fran_beta@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrought:


J. W. Love wrote:
Patricia wrote:
the name of the Spanish painter, Velazquez.

Most people accept that Spain has produced more than one painter. (The
comma tells us you reject that view.)


No it doesn't.

Your punctuation of those three words doesn't augur very well for your
subsequent views on the correct use of commas, but let's call it a
typo.

It *might* mean that but it can also mean that Velazquez
is a member of the class of people distinguishged by the criterion:
Spanish painter.

Oh, yeah?

"the name of the Spanish prime minister, Rodriguez Zapatero"

means that there's currently only one member of the class "prime
minister" and Rodriguez Zapatero is that member.

"the name of the former Spanish prime minister Aznar"

means that there are several members of the class "former prime
ministers" and Aznar is one of those members.

So, if you say

"the name of the Spanish painter, Velazquez

you're saying there's only one Spanish painter and his name is
Velazquez, which is bollocks.

The comma is out of place. No arguments, no shades of interpretation,
no mights -- it's Dead Wrong.



If points were awarded for emphasis you'd score bigtime. Sadly, you're
mistaken on all counts.

Velazquez here is merely a named instance of the class. The comma is
inserted for dramatic emphasis only. As someone who likes emphasis,
it's amusing you missed that. Context is important of course. Had I
employed a Spaniard to paint my house, I might refer to him just as you
suggest above.

You might consider how exchanging the definite article for an
indefinite one would change the meaning of the phrase.

TOF

.

Relevant Pages