JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

comma before 'whom' [relative pronoun]: my father, beside whom she

Julianus

Senior Member
Korean
Hello.

1a. The students beside whom I sat on the bus were very noisy. b. My father, beside whom my mom was sitting, was watching TV.

I think that these are all correct. And in 1a, comma shouldn't be used; in 1b comma should be used because in 1a, it is necessary to specify what kinds of students are whereas in 1b, 'My father' itself is already specified. Am I right?

Thank you always~.
You are right that both sentences are grammatically correct and have the right punctuation. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. In (1a) the whole sentence is about 'the students', and there is no need for a comma to indicate a change of subject matter. In (1b) there is insertion of a 'foreign' element (the 'mom'), so the sentence is divided into two elements:
[My father,] beside whom my mom was sitting, [was watching TV]. The punctuation aids comprehension.
I concur with Elwintee's conclusion (that the comma is required to be absent in 1a and present in 1b), but not with his reasoning. For me it has nothing to do with aiding comprehension or change of subject. In fact, jullianus has given the correct reason. It is that in 1a we are dealing with a restrictive or defining clause (the students are being more particularly identified as those beside whom I sat), whereas in 1b the clause about mom is non-restrictive. It is not being used to identify one of several putative fathers of mine; most people only have one father.
I concur with Elwintee's conclusion (that the comma is required to be absent in 1a and present in 1b), but not with his reasoning. For me it has nothing to do with aiding comprehension or change of subject. In fact, jullianus has given the correct reason. It is that in 1a we are dealing with a restrictive or defining clause (the students are being more particularly identified as those beside whom I sat), whereas in 1b the clause about mom is non-restrictive. It is not being used to identify one of several putative fathers of mine; most people only have one father.

I think we are in close agreement, saying much the same thing but in different terms. I was not concerned about thel status of the father, but rather that there are two distinct thoughts embedded in the second sentence. (1) My father was watching TV. (2) My mother was sitting beside my father. When these are combined, for elegance and brevity, the punctuation has to be inserted as an aid to comprehension. In my view, punctuation gives grammar its human face, by indicating how we breathe and pause infinitesimally when we articulate a sentence.
I was not concerned about the status of the father, but rather that there are two distinct thoughts embedded in the second sentence. (1) My father was watching TV. (2) My mother was sitting beside my father.
Yes, OK, you say the thoughts are distinct, and I say the 2nd thought is not being used to define the subject of the first. Those views are similar enough. Nevertheless, we have established punctuation rules which tell us that the commas should not be omitted in such a case. Therefore there is no need to appeal to arguments based on "aid to comprehension" or nuances of pausing.
...punctuation has to be inserted as an aid to comprehension. In my view, punctuation gives grammar its human face, by indicating how we breathe and pause infinitesimally when we articulate a sentence.
I don't like the sound of this. To my mind, what distinguishes us from the apes is the ability to communicate our thoughts not only through uttered sounds but through the written word, which has the advantage that it can transcend generations. In a sense therefore I find it more appealing to think of the spoken form as being a rendering or interpretation of the written form, not the other way round. I consider our written language, not our spoken language, as our primary language. So our spoken nuances should reflect the punctuation, not vice versa. I accept that this view is a bit unorthodox.

Our armoury of established punctuation rules should normally suffice to tell us where to place and omit commas. If, having exhausted those rules, our written meaning is still insufficiently clear without needing to tinker with the punctuation on the basis of what we think our written text should sound like when read out, then re-phrasing is probably a better option.
Edinburgher's precisely right (post #3); that's the grammatical reasoning, and very well explained.

I disagree strongly with Edinburgher's post #5 ("I consider our written language, not our spoken language, as our primary language. So our spoken nuances should reflect the punctuation, not vice versa."). Just ask actors at rehearsal if they agree with that! I think grammar was made for man, and not man for grammar. Sadly, however, this sort of debate is presumably outside the terms of this Forum.
The rule of thumb is this:
If you can remove the phrase without changing the meaning of the sentence, you need to put commas.
If the phrase is essential to the meaning of the sentence, no comma.
I disagree strongly with Edinburgher's post #5. Sadly, however, this sort of debate is presumably outside the terms of this Forum.
I knew you would. Sorry, I was being overly provocative. It might be an interesting debate to have, but this is indeed not the place for it.

Let me make a weaker statement instead:
Punctuation in written text should be determined by what the text means, and this meaning should be unambiguously clear to anyone seeing it written without needing to hear it spoken.
Top Bottom

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /