Re: unnecessary comma?

Bob Cunningham wrote:
"Skitt" said:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
"Skitt" said:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
Oleg Lego said:
DJ posted:

In this sentence:

"In fact, fruit flies are so common in African mangoes that
America has banned their import altogether, to protect its own
orchards."

I'm wondering if the second comma is a typo?
(...altogether -> , <- to protect....)

Doesn't bother me. If I wrote the sentence, I'd probably put it
in. I like commas, though, for readability, if nothing else.

The sentence is okay either way, with or without the comma,
but the sentence has somewhat different meanings depending
upon whether or not the comma is there.

In fact, fruit flies are so common in African mangoes
that America has banned their import altogether, to
protect its own orchards.

When the sentence is written that way, it shows that the
expression starting with "to" is an incidental explanation,
and the comma stands for the slight pause a speaker would
make when reading the sentence that way.

In fact, fruit flies are so common in African mangoes
that America has banned their import altogether to
protect its own orchards.

With the comma omitted, the "to" clause is an essential part
of the writer's statement. It would be spoken without a
preceding pause, so it's correct to omit the comma.

Well, importing fruit flies is not a good thing, no matter how one
puts it.

What I'm trying to say is, the sentence is klutzy and should be
rewritten.

So we're talking about two subjects here:

1. Was the comma in the sentence quoted necessary?

2. How could the sentence be rewritten to not be
klutzy?

My remarks pertained to the first question, and my
impression is that it was that question the original poster
wanted comments on.

Of course.

Again--in my humble opinion--the question can't be answered
yes or no, because the comma is necessary or not depending
upon what meaning the writer wants to convey.

Well, yes, but what is the point in trying to figure out how to
punctuate a sentence that shouldn't have been written?

As for rewriting, I'll try:

To protect its orchards, America has banned the importing of African
mangoes, as they are commonly infested with fruit flies.

Something like that, but I'm sure that it can be done better.

But I don't believe that reflects the meaning that was
implied by the wording with the comma. It would be good as
a rewrite of the wording without the comma.

With the comma, which makes the "to" phrase parenthetical,
it would be more faithful to the meaning expressed to write
one of the following:

America has banned the importing of African
mangoes (to protect its orchards), as they are
commonly infested with fruit flies.

America has banned the importing of African
mangoes--to protect its orchards--as they are
commonly infested with fruit flies.

America has banned the importing of African
mangoes, to protect its orchards, as they are
commonly infested with fruit flies.

But the last two can be interpreted to mean that the
orchards are infested with fruit flies, so it would be
clearer to write

America has banned the importing of African
mangoes, to protect its orchards, as African
mangoes are commonly infested with fruit flies.

Note that the "to" phrase in your rewording is not
parenthetical. It's introductory, and its position opening
the sentence makes its meaning tend to predominate rather
than parentheticate.

I wouldn't use "as" where you did, though. I would use
"because" or "since". But maybe that's just because I've
grown to dislike the word "as" from seeing so many examples
in which "as" is used where "like" would be both more
natural and entirely correct. Miss Thistlebottom's alter
egos have pounded into the skulls of innocent schoolchildren
that "like" shouldn't be used as a conjunction, and many of
those innocents timidly shun "like" even where it would not
be used as a conjunction. Its even possible a lot of the
alter egos don't know any better.

Yeah, I know, your "as" isn't a "like" "as"; it's a
"because" "as", but it's still an "as", and I hate "as"es.

Also by the way, I like "like" as a conjunction. I like to
use English like ordinary people use it. Ordinary people,
and some extraordinary people, use "like" as a conjunction:

From _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_:

As parents you may be wondering like I do on
frequent occasions -- Charles Prince of Wales

Well, as I told you, I did that just like I did
everything else -- Harry Truman

Sir Oswald played bridge, like he did everything
else, extremely well -- Agatha Christie

Nobody will miss her like I shall -- Charles
Dickens

It's hard to determine the exact meaning or emphasis intended by the writer of the original sentence. That's why we are having this discussion, and that is why I find it very difficult to rewrite miswritten sentences. I have my own style of thinking and writing, and my train of thought is not necessarily in line with that of the original writer.

Regarding the "as" you mentioned above, I appear to have a propensity for using it -- I almost did it again, but wound up changing the whole paragraph and eliminating the need for an "as".
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/

.