1

a. John was talking incessantly and Bob was drinking shot after shot of vodka making me feel very uncomfortable.

b. John was talking incessantly and Bob was drinking shot after shot of vodka, making me feel very uncomfortable.

The two sentences are the same except for the comma after the word vodka.

Can we tell if John's talking and Bob's drinking are both making me feel uncomfortable or only Bob's drinking?

Does the comma change anything?

1
  • Can you find some other examples, please? The given exposition seems to miss the point entirely. Other compound phrases might be treated differently and here, the compounding makes no difference in grammar or in meaning. 'John was talking incessantly…' is equivalent to 'Bob was drinking () vodka…' is equivalent to 'John was talking incessantly and Bob was drinking () vodka…' In other cases the difference might be vital; here, how is it either relevant or useful? Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:05

1 Answer 1

-1

You need a comma there to indicate the consequence (both of John's incessant talking and of Bob's heavy drinking):

b. John was talking incessantly and Bob was drinking shot after shot of vodka , making me feel very uncomfortable.

A comma could only be done without if the V-ing described the way in which one of the actions was performed.

  • John talked feeling he could say anything.
  • Bob drank vodka thinking it was water.

However, it is often required even in those cases, especially when the main verb is already in a progressive tense or when there is an adverb of manner in between.

The clue, then, is that the absence of the comma will not enable the consequence meaning that is required in the sentence at issue.

2
  • 2
    Anonymous downvoters are welcome to kindly justify their negative opinion.
    – Gustavson
    Commented Nov 20, 2019 at 9:53
  • 1
    I suggest you define the term V-ing. Commented May 19, 2022 at 11:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .