Don't Change a Comma; Don't Insert a Superfluous One

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Don't change a comma
April 12, 2006

There's talk at the State House that Romney plans to veto or amend the section of the bill that guarantees an income stream for the two hospitals, as the state moves their uninsured patients into the health insurance system.

The commas of this piece are impeccable except for the one after “hospitals.” That redundant comma cuts off a trailing restrictive adverbial clause. Normal syntax is subject-verb-adverbial modifier. The modifier can be word, phrase, or clause. 1. We left today. 2. We will leave in the morning. 3. We will leaven when the sun comes out.

These modifiers are usually restrictive and get no commas before them. The one in the “Don’t Change a Comma” editorial is restrictive. The bill guarantees an income stream for the two hospitals as the state moves their uninsured patients into the health insurance business, not, for example, as the state waits to see whether the hospitals can survive the move without state help.


This error of putting a comma before a restrictive adverbial clause in the normal end position is a common one. People who wouldn’t cut off with a comma a one-word adverb or adverbial phrase at the end of a main clause cut off an adverbial clause with a comma. One doesn’t know why. Maybe the urge comes from the adverbial modifier’s being a clause or perhaps because of its length. For whatever reason, doing so is wrong.