Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage
Comma *after* "so".
In some comments on a book I'm working on, a reviewer commented on this sentence:
Any attempt to get the value of an unbound slot signals an error so you must set a slot before you can read it.
saying:
Comma after "so", please. Without the comma, "so" means "in order that"; with the comma, it means "with the consequence that".
Upon reflection it seems there should be a comma before the "so" since it's being used as a coordinating conjunction. Is that right? And does anyone know the basis for my reviewer's claim about "in order than" vs. "with the consequence that".
-Peter
Peter Seibel (Email Removed)
Lisp is the red pill. John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
Any attempt to get the value of an unbound slot signals an error so you must set a slot before you can read it.
saying:
Comma after "so", please. Without the comma, "so" means "in order that"; with the comma, it means "with the consequence that".
Upon reflection it seems there should be a comma before the "so" since it's being used as a coordinating conjunction. Is that right? And does anyone know the basis for my reviewer's claim about "in order than" vs. "with the consequence that".
-Peter
Peter Seibel (Email Removed)
Lisp is the red pill. John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
Top answer
[nq:1]In some comments on a book I'm working on, a reviewer commented on this sentence: Any attempt to get the ... that right? And does anyone know the basis for my reviewer's claim about "inorder than" vs.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
0
[nq:1]In some comments on a book I'm working on, a reviewer commented on this sentence: Any attempt to get the ... that right? And does anyone know the basis for my reviewer's claim about "inorder than" vs. "with the consequence that".[/nq]
Definitely before, not after. There will be occasions when it's not needed: this is style, not grammar. I don't think I buy your reviewer's theory as a har
Definitely before, not after. There will be occasions when it's not needed: this is style, not grammar. I don't think I buy your reviewer's theory as a har
00
Peter Seibel schrieb:
[nq:1]In some comments on a book I'm working on, a reviewer commented on this sentence: Any attempt to get the ... seems there should be a comma before the "so" since it's being used as a coordinating conjunction. Is that right?[/nq]
Yes.
[nq:1]And does anyone know the basis for my reviewer's claim about "in order than" vs. "with the consequence that".[/nq]
[nq:1]In some comments on a book I'm working on, a reviewer commented on this sentence: Any attempt to get the ... seems there should be a comma before the "so" since it's being used as a coordinating conjunction. Is that right?[/nq]
Yes.
[nq:1]And does anyone know the basis for my reviewer's claim about "in order than" vs. "with the consequence that".[/nq]
00
If this is a capable reviewer (could you have meant "editor"?), I'd say he simply slipped. (I don't know about the rest of you, but several times in posting to Usenet I have mixed up "before" and "after" (not to mention "adverb" and "adjective" and at least once "preposition" and "pronoun"). The brain thinks one thing; the fingers write another. There's no logic to a comma after "so" in the exampl
0