I'm probably overthinking this, but it's bothering me.
The purdue OWL says to put a comma before "as if," if it's being used as a subordinating conjunction to join independent clauses. So I have this sentence (names of the characters changed to protect the innocent):
Tom risked another glance at Bob, who was staring at the tapestry on the far wall, as if its faded depiction of the Last Stand of the Sentinel was the most interesting thing he'd ever seen.
Or should it be:
Tom risked another glance at Bob, who was staring at the tapestry on the far wall as if its faded depiction of the Last Stand of the Sentinel was the most interesting thing he'd ever seen.
The way I see it is the presence or absence of a comma changes the meaning of the sentence a bit, or to put it another way, the centrality of the clause in question. With a second comma, "Tom risked another glance at Bob, who was staring at the tapestry on the far wall" is stand alone, and the portion after the second comma is simply extra information, or an afterthought on the part of Tom about how Bob is staring.
Without a comma, how Bob is staring is central to the meaning of the sentence.
Sort of like the difference between: "The dog, which stood on the porch, barked" and "The dog that stood on the porch barked."
Am I correct, or am I overthinking this and the comma just has to be there, regardless?
Commas before "as if."
The purdue OWL says to put a comma before "as if," if it's being used as a subordinating conjunction to join independent clauses. So I have this sentence (names of the characters changed to protect the innocent):
Tom risked another glance at Bob, who was staring at the tapestry on the far wall, as if its faded depiction of the Last Stand of the Sentinel was the most interesting thing he'd ever seen.
Or should it be:
Tom risked another glance at Bob, who was staring at the tapestry on the far wall as if its faded depiction of the Last Stand of the Sentinel was the most interesting thing he'd ever seen.
The way I see it is the presence or absence of a comma changes the meaning of the sentence a bit, or to put it another way, the centrality of the clause in question. With a second comma, "Tom risked another glance at Bob, who was staring at the tapestry on the far wall" is stand alone, and the portion after the second comma is simply extra information, or an afterthought on the part of Tom about how Bob is staring.
Without a comma, how Bob is staring is central to the meaning of the sentence.
Sort of like the difference between: "The dog, which stood on the porch, barked" and "The dog that stood on the porch barked."
Am I correct, or am I overthinking this and the comma just has to be there, regardless?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire