Written by Martin Wiles

---

As authors and writers, we can’t control what publishers and editors do with commas. And as editors, we can’t always control what happens in The Chicago Manual of Style world, but let’s not throw commas out completely. I’ve been confused more than once when reading a sentence from which a writer or editor chose to omit a comma.  

In the publishing industry, the current trend is “less is more” where it concerns commas. As an English teacher, I’m still hanging on to the old-school philosophy of teaching my students to put commas in places from which a publisher or editor might remove them. But as an editor and writer, I must follow the style guides of the place for which I’m editing or writing. If they say no Oxford commas, then I must omit serial commas.

But let’s set the standard: Commas are important for at least two reasons.

First, and perhaps most important, commas prevent misreading. My all-time favorite is “Let’s eat, Grandma” versus “Let’s eat Grandma.” Without the comma, Grandma—whoever she is—faces a dilemma. With the comma, we know someone is directly speaking to Grandma.

The following compound sentence reflects another example: “I chose the colors red and green, and blue was his first choice.” Without the comma, blue might be associated with red and green—which actually belong to an entirely different sentence—but with the comma, we know blue begins a new sentence. 

One place from which commas are disappearing is following short adverbial prepositional phrases when they begin a sentence. Recently, I was reading a book published by a noted publisher when I noticed their comma usage. Two different sentences on the same page had short adverbial prepositional phrases at the beginning of a sentence. On one, the editors chose to insert a comma; on the other, they chose to omit it. I saw no difference in either sentence. Erring on the side of caution and good communication seems a better choice.

I teach my students the old-school way to insert commas. As an editor and writer, I follow the same rules unless house guidelines tell me to do differently. If the editor chooses to remove some from my writing, so be it. When we follow the typical rules, the acquisition or proof editor will know writers at least know how to use grammar correctly, which in the end will benefit the writer more.

Second, commas—and all forms of punctuation—guide our readers to read our material in a certain way. Typically, a dependent clause or prepositional phrase at the end of a sentence does not require a comma, but a writer or editor, on occasion, might want to insert one for effect.

With a comma, the following sentence takes on new meaning: “I studied for my exam but failed to pass,” or “I studied for my exam, but failed to pass.” Since the sentence is simple, it does not grammatically require a comma, but inserting one gives a totally different effect for the person reading it. With the comma, I can see in my mind the disappointment of the student. Without it, probably not.

Although comma usage rules are evolving in the world of grammar, writing, and editing, let’s keep the comma. Throwing it away—or severely limiting its use—could cause a lot of misunderstanding. And after all, whether we write, edit, or both, we want the final product to communicate clearly.

---