0

Because of that, at this point, they should do it.

I am thinking this is ok, but is this ok?

Because of that, at this point they should do it.

I see people do it often, but I think it's just a grammar error, so I am wondering if there's any rule that says it's ok since there's already "because of that" with a comma.

2
  • My inclination would be to drop the "at this point" entirely. Possibly I would add the word "now" at the end of the sentence. But that does not answer your question.
    – Dan
    Dec 27, 2021 at 2:07
  • Could you please provide additional context?
    – David Siegel
    Dec 27, 2021 at 3:46

2 Answers 2

1

Because of that, at this point, they should do it.

The above example is fine. at this point could be treated as an interruption and could hence be separated by a comma pair.

Because of that, at this point they should do it.

Because of that and at this point are introductory prepositional phrases.

Please refer to Englishplus for the following example.

Correct: Over hill, over dale, we hit the dusty trail. (The two phrases are in series here. We could say "Over hill and over dale.")

Our two phrases are considered parallel and hence should be separated by a comma.

Similar to cases where we place a comma after the last introductory phrase, we should have a comma here after at this point.

Because of that, at this point, they should do it.

By adding an and between the two phrases, we could show that Because of that and at this point are parallel.

Because of that and at this point, they should do it.

I believe we could test also by swapping the positions of the two phrases.

At this point, because of that, they should do it.

The sentence is still fine.

0

That first example is what's called a "comma splice"

See the heading "comma splice" here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma/

The second example you wrote is better but to my native American eyes it seems awkward.

Good question.

2
  • 1
    Not sure that it's a comma splice. If it were then you could make two sentences. I don't think there is a second sentence.
    – Dan
    Dec 27, 2021 at 2:05
  • 1
    It is certainly not a comma splice, which describes the misconjunction of two independent clauses—as your Grammarly citation indicates. OP's sentence contains exactly one clause. Even if the first were a clause, the subordinating clause "because" would make it dependent. Dec 27, 2021 at 3:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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