tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15617001.post5227819517243767990..comments2024-03-20T02:26:46.482-04:00Comments on Joanna Bourne: Copy EditsJo Bournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13457862962618886252noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15617001.post-61227421208842246312007-05-14T10:48:00.000-04:002007-05-14T10:48:00.000-04:00Hi Beth --I went out and BOUGHT the Chicago Manual...Hi Beth --<BR/><BR/>I went out and BOUGHT the Chicago Manual of Style. Had to mortgage the cat to do it. That is one expensive publication.<BR/> <BR/>If I'd thought to do it a month ago I would have bought it second-hand at half the price.<BR/>Be warned by my example here when you're doing your own copyedits.<BR/> <BR/>In any case ... the Chic is just as clear as can be. <BR/>And is that mother didactic!<BR/>It says ... this is how it shall be done <BR/>(rumble of thunder)<BR/>!!<BR/> <BR/>I am working my way through the ms. <BR/><BR/>Many of the suggested commas are somewhat judgement calls. <BR/><BR/>For instance ... independent clauses joined by 'and' or 'but' can be separated by a comma. If they're short and well connected, they don't have to be.<BR/><BR/>(makes it sound like rich and influential clauses ggg)<BR/><BR/>So ... a judgement call. <BR/><BR/>I made decisions on each of these while I was writing, but it certainly doesn't hurt to go back and reconsider. So that's what I'm doing.<BR/><BR/>I'm stetting much more than I would like to, but I'm afraid it's necessary.<BR/><BR/>I think I'll put up a 'technical topic' thingum on getting the copyedits back. Somebody might find it useful.Jo Bournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13457862962618886252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15617001.post-80630860065438475102007-05-14T09:46:00.000-04:002007-05-14T09:46:00.000-04:00Jo,Would've e-mailed you about this, but couldn't ...Jo,<BR/><BR/>Would've e-mailed you about this, but couldn't find a link here to do that.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I dropped in at the forum this morning, just to lurk for a few minutes. First time in a very long time I've been there. Happened to see your thread about commas. Thought I would offer my input, fwiw, since obsessing over punctuation is one of my joys in life.<BR/><BR/>Here are the sentences under discussion:<BR/><BR/><I>She slumped against the wall [insert comma] which was of cut stone and immensely solid, as prison walls often are.</I> <BR/><BR/>Yes, definitely. This is ironclad, though often done wrong anyway, since people get confused and use "which" when they really should use "that." "Which" is non-restrictive, which simply means that the "which" clause can be eliminated and the sentence still make sense grammatically. A comma always sets off a non-restrictive clause. If the clause is restrictive--meaning it can't be separated from the rest of the sentence--"that" should be used instead of "which." In your case, "which" is correct, but that also means a comma is required.<BR/><BR/><I>With such a useful stone wall to hold onto [insert comma] she would not fall down.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, most likely. It's better for rhythm, and the introductory clause is long enough that a comma helps.<BR/><BR/><I>She tried to swallow [insert comma] but her throat was too dry.</I><BR/><BR/>Could go either way. Up to you. <BR/><BR/><I>If I had the Albion plans [insert comma] I would lay them at your feet to buy it back."</I><BR/><BR/>This is dialogue, which means you can punctuate it any way you darn well please. I wouldn't use a comma there, not unless you mean for him or her to pause in the middle of that sentence. <BR/><BR/><I>She could hear the other prisoners, the English spies, making small sounds on the other side of the cell, but it was dark [insert comma] and they could no longer see her.</I><BR/><BR/>No comma. The sentence already has enough of them and adding one there just makes it bunpier. Not to mention it's completely unnecessary.Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504439129670380071noreply@blogger.com