0

Consider this sentence I found in a chess textbook:

This book starts with prophylaxis because I'm convinced that in order to master positional thinking, one needs first to master prophylactic thinking.

Now, in my native language, there should a comma between that and in order, as you can't separate a conjunction (in this case, "that") from the clause it introduces (namely, "one needs first to master prophylactic thinking") by using a comma. Whatever comes in between the conjunction and the clause must be wrapped up between two commas. So in this case I'd have written

This book starts with prophylaxis because I'm convinced that, in order to master positional thinking, one needs first to master prophylactic thinking.

Does this rule exist in English as well? Or do you think sentence 1 is correct the way it is?

1

Every time I see a question about comma usage, I reiterate that punctuation is not grammar. Punctuation does not exist in the spoken language at all. Moreover, in the U.S. at least, punctuation is determined by style guides. They differ in some respects although they share many commonalities.

In this case, I believe most, perhaps all, authorities in the U.S. would advocate punctuating as you have suggested.

EDIT: If you want to omit the comma before “in order to,” I’d also omit the comma after “positional thinking.” But I’d retain both.

2

I would consider the sentence more cohesive without the comma. However, in more formal writing you could insert the comma, it just depends on your writing style.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.