The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Right, time to finish this.
"Instead of that weirdo irritating us all the time, I say we kill him."
This is how it was originally written.
This is how Your Honour thinks it should be written.
"Instead of that weirdo, irritating us all the time, I say we kill him."
Now... surely it DOESN'T need a comma? Please, discuss and argue this.
I know this is a pointless topic... but I don't think this one is going to make much of a difference to the already made mountains of rubbish topics...
"Instead of that weirdo irritating us all the time, I say we kill him."
This is how it was originally written.
This is how Your Honour thinks it should be written.
"Instead of that weirdo, irritating us all the time, I say we kill him."
Now... surely it DOESN'T need a comma? Please, discuss and argue this.
I know this is a pointless topic... but I don't think this one is going to make much of a difference to the already made mountains of rubbish topics...
Page:
A non-restrictive clause or phrase contains information that is not necessary to the basic meaning of the sentence. That clause is set off by commas.
A restrictive clause is necessary to convey the meaning of the sentence. No commas are used around such a clause.
The treaty that was signed in 1811 set the boundary lines.
Here, the clause "that was signed in 1811" is necessary. It restricts or limits the treaty that the writer is citing.
Finally, after arduous negotiations, an agreement was made. The treaty, which was signed in 1811, set the boundary lines.
Here, the writer gives us a context. We know which treaty he is citing. The date is merely additional information. If the phrase "which was signed in 1811" were lifted from the sentence, the sense would be the same.
A restrictive clause is necessary to convey the meaning of the sentence. No commas are used around such a clause.
The treaty that was signed in 1811 set the boundary lines.
Here, the clause "that was signed in 1811" is necessary. It restricts or limits the treaty that the writer is citing.
Finally, after arduous negotiations, an agreement was made. The treaty, which was signed in 1811, set the boundary lines.
Here, the writer gives us a context. We know which treaty he is citing. The date is merely additional information. If the phrase "which was signed in 1811" were lifted from the sentence, the sense would be the same.
The only time i ever use commos is in english class. What need is there ever outside
The comma would be totally wrong for this.
:P
:P
The comma would be totally wrong, for this.
William Wallace wrote:
> it wasn't needed
im an english teacher
...and you didn't even use a capital 'I' or an apostrophe. Disgraceful! ;)
> it wasn't needed
im an english teacher
...and you didn't even use a capital 'I' or an apostrophe. Disgraceful! ;)
There could be a comma, but it's not needed.
Anyway, read a few messages below, and you will see that I was right.
Anyway, read a few messages below, and you will see that I was right.
I can't even spell!
That should have been, obviously, CAN.
Ok?
That should have been, obviously, CAN.
Ok?
CEN EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT THAT BLOOMIN' COMMA!
If not, i'll have to stick it where the sun don't shine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-)
If not, i'll have to stick it where the sun don't shine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-)
Page: