Recently I've visited an art gallery and happened to come across a masterpiece , of a woman the artist had loved for a long time.
Recently I've visited an art gallery and happened to come across a masterpiece of a woman the artist had loved for a long time.
Would there be any difference between them in meaning, just merely only for that comma inserted right before "of"?
I think there is! and the meaning is, on the whole, different to each other.
In number 1, "I" seem to be not sure whether it's really a woman the artist had loved, but just guess it would be a woman, having seen the masterpiece, or it couldn't have been seen as a woman even at all because it was drawn so abstactically that "I" didn't recognize whether the artist drew it about a woman or not.
But on the other hand, In number 2, "I" seem to be sure that it's a masterpiece of a woman and the masterpiece is definitely of a woman.
I think this difference could be found out in these following sentences as well.
- This final portrayal, of Stalin, does no credit to the author.
- This final portrayal of Stalin does no credit to the author.
In number 3, we can't be sure whether this final portrayal is really of Stalin or not, but in number 4, we can be sure that it is of Stalin.