# comma before the relative pronoun "that"



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

I saw the following definition, and I'm wondering if the comma is used properly, or it's dictionary-speak.


Carlsbad plum n.
a dessert plum of a blue-black variety*, *that is often crystallized.


I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## dojibear

This is a noun phrase (since it is defining a noun). The comma is used correctly. Here is a full sentence:

Carlsbad plum *is *a dessert plum of a blue-black variety*, *that is often crystallized.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Suppose there were a type of plum called X plum, defined as follows:

a red plum*, *that is often crystallized

Is the comma used correctly?


----------



## velisarius

The dictionary wants to make it clear that it's the Carlsbad plum that is often crystallised. The relative clause doesn't modify  the phrase_ a dessert plum of a blue-black variety._


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I saw the following definition, and I'm wondering if the comma is used properly, or it's dictionary-speak.
> Carlsbad plum n.
> a dessert plum of a blue-black variety*, *that is often crystallized.


It's a grammatical error by the dictionary.

"That" cannot be used to introduce non-defining relative clauses. It should be a defining relative clause with no comma, as in:

_A dessert plum of a blue-black variety that is often crystallized._


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Such use of commas is rather common in dictionaries. I suspect they are not careless mistakes.

deinotherium (also deinothere ) n. 
a fossil elephant-like mammal found mainly in the Pliocene epoch*, that* had tusks in the lower jaw that curved downwards and backwards.

facade (also façade) n. 
the principal front of a building*, that* faces on to a street or open space.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Such use of commas is rather common in dictionaries. I suspect they are not careless mistakes.
> deinotherium (also deinothere ) n.
> a fossil elephant-like mammal found mainly in the Pliocene epoch*, that* had tusks in the lower jaw that curved downwards and backwards.
> facade (also façade) n.
> the principal front of a building*, that* faces on to a street or open space.


You suspect wrong! To claim that they are not mistakes would be to say that non-defining _that _relatives are grammatical, which they're not.

Not all dictionaries are thoroughly edited, it seems.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> You suspect wrong! To claim that they are not mistakes would be to say that non-defining _that _relatives are grammatical, which they're not.
> 
> Not all dictionaries are thoroughly edited, it seems.


i
I'm not saying the that-relatives are non-defining; rather, they are defining relative clauses, but the comma seems to be doing the job of showing the reader that the relative clause does not modify the immediately preceding nominal expression, but something larger. In "the principal front of a building*, that* faces on to a street or open space," the comma shows the relative clause does not modify "a building," but "the principal front of a building."

It seems to be a device employed to eliminate potential ambiguity, as the sequence "noun1 + of + noun2 + that-relative" is in danger of ambiguously modifying noun2 and noun1. If "of + noun2" does not exist, we won't see the comma.


----------



## lingobingo

I agree that they’re non-standard uses. I also see how natural it can sometimes seem to introduce what’s in effect a non-defining clause with *that*, rather than *which*, preceded by a comma. I would explain it as implying an ellipsis:

a dessert plum of a blue-black variety, [one] that is often crystallized.​a red plum, [of a type] that is often crystallized.​
However, those dictionary definitions are wrong as they stand. 

The first appears to have been corrected in Lexico. It now reads:
A fossil elephant-like mammal found mainly in the Pliocene epoch, the lower jaw having tusks curving downwards and backwards.​
The second still needs to be corrected. Not only the comma+that but also *“face on” to* grates for me. I could only express that as facing onto a street.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Another example:

futon n.
A padded unsprung mattress originating in Japan*, that *can be rolled up or folded in two.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, another example that would be standard if “originating in Japan” were made clearly parenthetical by being separated off by two commas or dashes or parentheses.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> I agree that they’re non-standard uses. I also see how natural it can sometimes seem to introduce what’s in effect a non-defining clause with *that*, rather than *which*, preceded by a comma. I would explain it as implying an ellipsis:
> 
> a dessert plum of a blue-black variety, [one] that is often crystallized.​a red plum, [of a type] that is often crystallized.​



But we won't see the dictionary use a comma in definitions such as the following:

a red plum *that *is . . . 

Presumably because there's not an intervening "of-noun" or "in-noun" phrase that could lead to ambiguity.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> i
> I'm not saying the that-relatives are non-defining; rather, they are defining relative clauses, but the comma seems to be doing the job of showing the reader that the relative clause does not modify the immediately preceding nominal expression, but something larger. In "the principal front of a building*, that* faces on to a street or open space," the comma shows the relative clause does not modify "a building," but "the principal front of a building."
> 
> It seems to be a device employed to eliminate potential ambiguity, as the sequence "noun1 + of + noun2 + that-relative" is in danger of ambiguously modifying noun2 and noun1. If "of + noun2" does not exist, we won't see the comma.


I disagree with what you say. The comma clearly marks the relative clause as being non-defining, thus it cannot be modifying "something larger", since* non-defining relatives are supplements not modifiers*. You can't have it both ways and say it's both non-defining and modifying.

If the intention was for it to be defining a comma should not have been included, but if it was intended to be non-defining then "which" could have been used.

I don't know for certain why the cited dictionary entries used a comma; I can only assume that it was a slip.

_A padded unsprung mattress originating in Japan*, that *can be rolled up or folded in two. _

That example is clearly ungrammatical.


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But we won't see the dictionary use a comma in definitions such as the following:
> 
> a red plum *that *is . . .
> 
> Presumably because there's not an intervening "of-noun" or "in-noun" phrase that could lead to ambiguity.


I don’t even understand your point. You’ve just given half a sentence in which *that* is used in the normal way to introduce a restrictive clause. Of course that’s how it _should_ be written, assuming the missing clause describes the red plum represented by the relative pronoun.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> I don’t even understand your point. You’ve just given half a sentence in which *that* is used in the normal way to introduce a restrictive clause. Of course that’s how it _should_ be written, assuming the missing clause describes the red plum represented by the relative pronoun.



You talked about "non-defining clauses with *that*," but there is no such thing in grammar. All that-relative clauses are defining (or restrictive).
And I don't think ellipsis could work because it would incorrectly allow:

a red plum*, that* is often crystallized. (your restored version of it is "a red plum, [of a type] that is often crystallized.")

We won't find such use of "that" and the comma in the dictionary, even if we assume ellipsis at work.


----------



## billj

_a dessert plum of a blue-black variety*, *that is often crystallized._

And even if the intended antecedent is the embedded NP "blue-black variety" it would still be wrong to mark the relative clause as non-defining.

The answer to your original question is that the examples are ungrammatical.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> I disagree with what you say. The comma clearly marks the relative clause as being non-defining, thus it cannot be modifying "something larger", since* non-defining relatives are supplements not modifiers*. You can't have it both ways and say it's both non-defining and modifying.
> 
> If the intention was for it to be defining a comma should not have been included, but if it was intended to be non-defining then "which" could have been used.
> 
> I don't know for certain why the cited dictionary entries used a comma; I can only assume that it was a slip.
> 
> _A padded unsprung mattress originating in Japan*, that *can be rolled up or folded in two. _
> 
> That example is clearly ungrammatical.



You are taking the comma as a yardstick for non-defining relative clausehood. However, that's the point under question. So let's take care not to beg the question. 

If this is a careless mistake on the part of the editors of Lexico (and other Oxford non-learner's dictionaries), why do the editors of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary also adopt the same practice?


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> You talked about "non-defining clauses with *that*," but there is no such thing in grammar. All that-relative clauses are defining (or restrictive).
> And I don't think ellipsis could work because it would incorrectly allow:
> 
> a red plum*, that* is often crystallized. (your restored version of it is "a red plum, [of a type] that is often crystallized.")
> 
> We won't find such use of "that" and the comma in the dictionary, even if we assume ellipsis at work.


You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was to explain how I think someone’s mind might be working when they make the mistake in question. 

And your last statement above is wrong. A comma (or dash) would be needed if the omitted part were included:

[It is] a dessert plum of a blue-black variety, [which is] one that is often crystallized.​


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> You are taking the comma as a yardstick for non-defining relative clausehood. However, that's the point under question. So let's take care not to beg the question.



Of course I am, because it is. There's no question being "begged" here. This is a very simple point of grammar that hardly needs lengthy debate.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If this is a careless mistake on the part of the editors of Lexico (and other Oxford non-learner's dictionaries), why do the editors of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary also adopt the same practice?


I've no idea. Perhaps you should write to those dictionaries and ask them that question.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was to explain how I think someone’s mind might be working when they make the mistake in question.



If the editors' mind worked that way, we'd expect to find use of the comma in examples of the kind I described in post #15. But we won't.



lingobingo said:


> And your last statement above is wrong. A comma (or dash) would be needed if the omitted part were included:
> 
> [It is] a dessert plum of a blue-black variety, [which is] one that is often crystallized.​



No, my last statement is not wrong. I said:



> We won't find such use of "*that*" and the comma in the dictionary, even if we assume ellipsis at work.


I was talking about "that," but you are talking about "which" in your "[It is] a dessert plum of a blue-black variety, [*which *is] one that is often crystallized."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> Of course I am, because it is. There's no question being "begged" here. This is a very simple point of grammar that hardly needs lengthy debate.



No, it is not. The comma preceding a restrictive that-relative is also used when a parenthetical expression such as "especially" or "such as" is used.

So the comma is by no means a yardstick for a non-restrictive relative clause.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> No, it is not. The comma preceding a restrictive that-relative is also used when a parenthetical expression such as "especially" or "such as" is used.
> 
> So the comma is by no means a yardstick for a non-restrictive relative clause.


In normal relative clause structure, a comma is used to mark the clause as non-defining. It's a perfectly good working definition.

You've been given the same answer to your original question by all of us here. I don't see what you are trying to achieve here with this incessant arguing?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

From _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar:_

•• non-defining relative clause : a relative clause that gives additional information about the noun phrase to which it belongs, but is not a defining relative clause because the noun phrase is already defined and identifiable. A non-defining relative clause is usually separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma or commas, and if it is omitted the sentence will still make complete sense.

Linguists determine non-defining relative clauses on the basis of whether they give additional information. The presence of a comma is only a peripheral and by no means reliable feature.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> From _The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar:_
> 
> •• non-defining relative clause : a relative clause that gives additional information about the noun phrase to which it belongs, but is not a defining relative clause because the noun phrase is already defined and identifiable. A non-defining relative clause is usually separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma or commas, and if it is omitted the sentence will still make complete sense.
> 
> Linguists determine non-defining relative clauses on the basis of whether they give additional information. The presence of a comma is only a peripheral and by no means reliable feature.



No: where appropriate, one of the first things we look for is the presence or absence of punctuation such as a comma; this gives the reader an immediate idea of the meaning in terms of the intended restrictiveness, as well as that of structure.

If the comma is dropped from a non-defining relative clause, the meaning is likely to change, or at least be ambiguous, and the syntax most certainly is different.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> No: the first thing we look for is the presence or absence of punctuation such as a comma, which will give the reader an immediate idea of the meaning and structure.
> 
> If the comma is dropped from a non-defining relative clause, the meaning is likely to change, or at least be ambiguous, and the syntax most certainly is different.



Linguists care little about punctuation marks, which are not central to how languages work. When I was a teenage schoolboy, my English teacher did emphasize the importance of the comma in non-defining relative clauses, but as the above explication shows, it is actually not the most important defining feature. What matters more is the meaning. 

futon n.
A padded unsprung mattress originating in Japan*, that *can be rolled up or folded in two. 

Here, the that-relative describes the distinguishing feature of the futon, so is a defining relative clause.


----------



## billj

Anyway, I think you have received satisfactory answers to you question.

Without actually putting your original question to the dictionaries concerned, we cant be sure why they made the errors.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Linguists care little about punctuation marks, which are not central to how languages work. When I was a teenage schoolboy, my English teacher did emphasize the importance of the comma in non-defining relative clauses, but as the above explication shows, it is actually not the most important defining feature. What matters more is the meaning.



I covered that point in #24.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> futon n.
> A padded unsprung mattress originating in Japan*, that *can be rolled up or folded in two.
> 
> Here, the that-relative describes the distinguishing feature of the futon, so is a defining relative clause.



Non-defining _that_ relatives are very rare, and only marginally present in Standard English. In any case, they are special cases that  bear no relevance to the ones under discussion here. The example you cite is simply not acceptable with a comma.

As you have been repeatedly told, it is wrong for a defining relative clause to have the form of a non-defining one. Re-read all the previous answers.


----------



## tunaafi

billj said:


> No: where appropriate, one of the first things we look for is the presence or absence of punctuation such as a comma; this gives the reader an immediate idea of the meaning in terms of the intended restrictiveness, as well as that of structure.


That may well be true of_ wh- _relative clauses, but it is not true of relative clauses introduced by_ that_.  The use of_ that_ tells us that we have a defining relative clause, as you told us in post #5:_ "That" cannot be used to introduce non-defining relative clauses_.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> I covered that point in #24.



I addressed your concern in #23.



billj said:


> Non-defining _that_ relatives are very rare, and only marginally present in Standard English. In any case, they are special cases that  bear no relevance to the ones under discussion here. The example you cite is simply not acceptable with a comma.
> 
> As you have been repeatedly told, it is wrong for a defining relative clause to have the form of a non-defining one. Re-read all the previous answers.



The following defining relative clause does not precisely have the form of a non-defining one, apart from the comma.  A truly non-defining one would have "which" as the relative pronoun:

a dessert plum of a blue-black variety*, that *is often crystallized.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Thank you all for your contributions. Now I am more inclined to believe such use of the comma is a feature of the dictionary-speak of some editors.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I addressed your concern in #23.



I didn't say in #24 or in any of my other answers that I had any "concerns".



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The following defining relative clause does not precisely have the form of a non-defining one, apart from the comma.  A truly non-defining one would have "which" as the relative pronoun:
> 
> a dessert plum of a blue-black variety*, that *is often crystallized.


No one is disputing that. If it was intended by the writer to be non-defining it would certainly be a _wh_-relative; indeed that would be the expected form for such a supplement.

The more salient interpretation, though, is that the clause is actually intended to be a defining one, and that the comma has simply been inserted in error. I can't see any grammatical or semantic motivation for its presence.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> I didn't say in #24 or in any of my other answers that I had any "concerns".



Your concern was that the presence of a comma "gives the reader an immediate idea of the meaning in terms of the intended restrictiveness."
But now I see you no longer insist that the relative clauses under discussion are non-defining ones.



billj said:


> No one is disputing that. If it was intended by the writer to be non-defining it would certainly be a _wh_-relative; indeed that would be the expected form for such a supplement.



I didn't, and don't, think the relative clauses in this thread are non-defining. Nor do I think the writer(s) intended them to be.



billj said:


> The more salient interpretation, though, is that the clause is actually intended to be a defining one, and that the comma has simply been inserted in error. I can't see any grammatical or semantic motivation for its presence.



There is a stylistic motivation for inserting the comma. 
Take the definition of _facade _for example:

facade (also façade) n.
the principal front of a building*, that* faces on to a street or open space. 

1. The "that" signals the relative clause is defining (or restrictive).  If non-defining relative clausehood were intended, "which" would be used.
2. Since the that-clause is defining (or restrictive), the reader has to determine its scope of modification; does it modify "a building" or "the principal front of a building"? Without the comma, it'd be ambiguous. With it, the writer indicates that the relative clause does not modify "a building."

The writer's motivation is conceivable and understandable. Greater definitional clarity has been achieved by the comma, though this is inconsistent with school grammar.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Your concern was that the presence of a comma "gives the reader an immediate idea of the meaning in terms of the intended restrictiveness."
> But now I see you no longer insist that the relative clauses under discussion are non-defining ones.



It was stated as a fact not as a concern that "needed addressing".

I made it very clear in #5 that the clause should be a defining one: I said "It should be a defining relative clause with no comma, as in: _dessert plum of a blue-black variety that is often crystallized._



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I didn't, and don't, think the relative clauses in this thread are non-defining. Nor do I think the writer(s) intended them to be.



Nor do I, again as I said in #5.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> There is a stylistic motivation for inserting the comma.
> Take the definition of _facade _for example:
> 
> facade (also façade) n.
> the principal front of a building*, that* faces on to a street or open space.
> 
> 1. The "that" signals the relative clause is defining (or restrictive).  If non-defining relative clausehood were intended, "which" would be used.
> 2. Since the that-clause is defining (or restrictive), the reader has to determine its scope of modification; does it modify "a building" or "the principal front of a building"? Without the comma, it'd be ambiguous. With it, the writer indicates that the relative clause does not modify "a building.



I don't see any ambiguity in terms of whether the clause is defining or non-defining. Whatever the relative clause is intended to modify, it is still a defining one. That is the topic of this whole thread, as per your original question. Irrespective of style, a relative clause is either defining or non-defining.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The writer's motivation is conceivable and understandable. Greater definitional clarity has been achieved by the comma, though this is inconsistent with school grammar.


I don't see any such 'greater definitional clarity' arising from the presence of a comma. The fact is that the relative clause is a defining one and hence is grammatically incorrect with a comma; it's as simple as that.


----------



## grassy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Without the comma, it'd be ambiguous.


Not to me. I see no need for the comma there.
By the way, clausehood is a new word I learned today. Thanks.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> Not to me. I see no need for the comma there.



You see no need for the comma probably because you are familiar with that word already.

Consider this definition:

ice skate n.
a boot with a thin metal blade (= sharp edge) on the bottom*, that *is used for skating on ice 

Without the comma, a learner who hasn't learned this expression before might wonder whether the relative clause modifies "the bottom," "a thin metal blade on the bottom," or "a boot with a thin metal blade on the bottom."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> It was stated as a fact not as a concern that "needed addressing".



But it's not a fact, for the reasons given upthread, and certainly needed addressing.



billj said:


> I don't see any ambiguity in terms of whether the clause is defining or non-defining. Whatever the relative clause is intended to modify, it is still a defining one. That is the topic of this whole thread, as per your original question. Irrespective of style, a relative clause is either defining or non-defining.



The ambiguity is not about whether the clause is defining or non-defining. It's about whether the clause, being a defining one, modifies an immediately preceding nominal expression or something larger. The writer of the definitions want to eliminate such ambiguity. That's a stylistic concern for them.




billj said:


> I don't see any such 'greater definitional clarity' arising from the presence of a comma. The fact is that the relative clause is a defining one and hence is grammatically incorrect with a comma; it's as simple as that.



A defining relative clause with a comma is prescriptively wrong. That's junior high school-level English grammar, but what I'm suspecting here is that the editors defy that rule for clarity's sake. And that style is what I termed dictionary-speak in #1.


----------



## grassy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> You see no need for the comma probably because you are familiar with that word already.
> 
> Consider this definition:
> 
> ice skate n.
> a boot with a thin metal blade (= sharp edge) on the bottom*, that *is used for skating on ice
> 
> Without the comma, a learner who hasn't learned this expression before might wonder whether the relative clause modifies "the bottom," "a thin metal blade on the bottom," or "a boot with a thin metal blade on the bottom."


I understand your point, Ray, but let's not forget to use logic here:

It cannot possibly refer to _the bottom_: the bottom that is used for skating on ice?  Meaning the bottom touches the ice? Where does the metal blade go then? It wouldn't make sense for anyone who hasn't seen an ice skate in their life, much less for those who have.

_a thin metal blade on the bottom that is used for skating on ice?_ Nice try, but no. Why would the thin metal blade attached to the boot be more important than the boot itself? It's the boots we use to skate, not the blades.

Therefore, the relative clause has to modify _a boot_.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> I understand your point, Ray, but let's not forget to use logic here:
> 
> It cannot possibly refer to _the bottom_: the bottom that is used for skating on ice?  Meaning the bottom touches the ice? Where does the metal blade go then? It wouldn't make sense for anyone who hasn't seen an ice skate in their life, much less for those who have.
> 
> _a thin metal blade on the bottom that is used for skating on ice?_ Nice try, but no. Why would the thin metal blade attached to the boot be more important than the boot itself? It's the boots we use to skate, not the blades.
> 
> Therefore, the relative clause has to modify _a boot_.



The ambiguity is more often potential than real, as I said " It seems to be a device employed to eliminate potential ambiguity" in #8. However, the comma aids in efficiency in comprehension. Without it, a learner would have to process that much information to determine what the relative clause can possibly modify. With the comma, it'd be much quicker to link the relative clause to the proper antecedent. I don't know if you have seen GMAT test items; many distractors make sense and are not really ambiguous, but the correct answer is often phrased in such a way to avoid _potential _ambiguity.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But it's not a fact, for the reasons given upthread, and certainly needed addressing.



It is a fact that the dictionary examples are defining relatives. Why do you find it so difficult to understand this simple fact?



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The ambiguity is not about whether the clause is defining or non-defining. It's about whether the clause, being a defining one, modifies an immediately preceding nominal expression or something larger. The writer of the definitions want to eliminate such ambiguity. That's a stylistic concern for them.



That is not what you originally asked about. You asked whether the comma was correct in the examples you cited and you have been repeatedly told by everyone that it is *not*.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A defining relative clause with a comma is prescriptively wrong. That's junior high school-level English grammar, but what I'm suspecting here is that the editors defy that rule for clarity's sake. And that style is what I termed dictionary-speak in #1.



Fine if that's what you want to think. We all think it's a slip by the publisher.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> It is a fact that the dictionary examples are defining relatives. Why do you find it so difficult to understand this simple fact?



No one is disputing that. I was commenting on your statement that the presence of a comma "gives the reader an immediate idea of the meaning in terms of the intended restrictiveness."




billj said:


> That is not what you originally asked about. You asked whether the comma was correct in the examples you cited and you have been repeatedly told by everyone that it is *not*.



I asked:

_I saw the following definition, and I'm wondering if the comma is used properly, *or it's dictionary-speak*._




billj said:


> Fine that's what you think. We all think it's a slip by the publisher.



It's highly unlikely that editors of prestigious dictionaries such as Oxford Dictionary of English don't know junior high school-level grammar.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> You see no need for the comma probably because you are familiar with that word already.
> 
> Consider this definition:
> 
> ice skate n.
> a boot with a thin metal blade (= sharp edge) on the bottom*, that *is used for skating on ice
> 
> Without the comma, a learner who hasn't learned this expression before might wonder whether the relative clause modifies "the bottom," "a thin metal blade on the bottom," or "a boot with a thin metal blade on the bottom."


This is irrelevant to this thread, which is about whether a comma is correct in the cited examples. 

The presence or absence of a a comma does not disambiguate (that's if there's any ambiguity in the first place)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> This is irrelevant to this thread, which is about whether a comma is correct in the cited examples.
> 
> The presence or absence of a a comma does not disambiguate (that's if there's any ambiguity in the first place)



Of course this is relevant to this thread, as I asked the following in #1:

I saw the following definition, and I'm wondering if the comma is used properly, *or it's dictionary-speak*.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> No one is disputing that. I was commenting on your statement that the presence of a comma "gives the reader an immediate idea of the meaning in terms of the intended restrictiveness."
> I asked:
> 
> _I saw the following definition, and I'm wondering if the comma is used properly, *or it's dictionary-speak*._
> It's highly unlikely that editors of prestigious dictionaries such as Oxford Dictionary of English don't know junior high school-level grammar.



I'm aware of what you asked. As you have been repeatedly told, it appears to be an error by the publishers.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> I'm aware of what you asked. As you have been repeatedly told, it appears to be an error by the publishers.



So you think lexicographers for Oxford University Press aren't familiar with junior high school-level grammar? How likely do you think that can be?


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Of course this is relevant to this thread, as I asked the following in #1:
> 
> I saw the following definition, and I'm wondering if the comma is used properly, *or it's dictionary-speak*.


Again, I know what you asked, and we have all answered that question. Don't keep arguing about this.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> Again, I know what you asked, and we have all answered that question. Don't keep arguing about this.



I have a question:

So you think lexicographers for Oxford University Press aren't familiar with junior high school-level grammar? How likely do you think that can be?


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> So you think lexicographers for Oxford University Press aren't familiar with junior high school-level grammar? How likely do you think that can be?


How should I know? They are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else.

Don't expect us to second guess what the editors were up to. I suggest that you write to the editors of the dictionaries concerned and express your concerns to them. Do let us know what you find out.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> How should I know? They are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else.



If a "mistake" is random, then it is indeed one. But if it is systematic and follows a logic of its own, then it is not a careless mistake.


----------



## billj

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If a "mistake" is random, then it is indeed one. But if it is systematic and follows a logic of its own, then it is not a careless mistake.


Again, I suggest that you write to the dictionary editors.


----------



## JulianStuart

I wonder if the "strict" grammar afficionados also call it a "mistake" when a dictionary definition does not conform to a "complete sentence" requirement. Or is it an illustration of the use of what ray calls "dictionary-speak".  We've had umpteens of questions about "grammar" in dictionary definitions over the years, whether related to choice of (in)definite article, ellipsis and other things that would not be found in "proper" written English.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> So you think lexicographers for Oxford University Press aren't familiar with junior high school-level grammar? How likely do you think that can be?





billj said:


> How should I know? They are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else.


Really? I find this an odd comment.  It can hardly be anything other than an active decision to use the (unusual) format within their dictionary, for the purpose ray has described.  Whether it is a good decision or not is arguable, but I can't see the OED being full of mistakes


----------



## billj

JulianStuart said:


> I wonder if the "strict" grammar afficionados also call it a "mistake" when a dictionary definition does not conform to a "complete sentence" requirement. Or is it an illustration of the use of what ray calls "dictionary-speak".  We've had umpteens of questions about "grammar" in dictionary definitions over the years, whether related to choice of (in)definite article, ellipsis and other things that would not be found in "proper" written English.



I dare say that there have been.


JulianStuart said:


> Really? I find this an odd comment.  It can hardly be anything other than an active decision to use the (unusual) format within their dictionary, for the purpose ray has described.  Whether it is a good decision or not is arguable, but I can't see the OED being full of mistakes



There's nothing at all "odd" about it. Your point has been repeatedly addressed through this thread. It's not for us to second-guess what motivated the dictionaries to use a comma. Perhaps the OP should, as I suggested, write to the publishers/editors concerned.


----------



## JulianStuart

billj said:


> I dare say that there have been.


And they have been mainly focused on _ambiguity_ from "_norma_l dictionary-speak"



billj said:


> There's nothing at all "odd" about it.


You cannot tell me what *I* find odd, sorry.  


billj said:


> Your point has been *repeatedly addressed* through this thread. It's not for us to second-guess what motivated the dictionaries to use a comma. Perhaps the OP should, as I suggested, write to the publishers/editors concerned.


*Assertions* have been made, yes.

Or perhaps one might consider that "dictionary-speak" (the conventions used by dictionaries for clarity and space reasons, not striving for adherence to the grammar rules prescribed for "normal written English") is a compromise and does not follow the "rules" of grammar? Like headlines don't.  Are _they_ all "mistakes", too? I find the ellipsis in dictionary definitions similar to those in headlines. We frequently tell learners about the "non-grammatical" wording in definitions, and this is no exception - we would not teach them to use this structure in "standard" written English



lingobingo said:


> Yes, another example that would be standard if “originating in Japan” were made clearly parenthetical by being separated off by two commas or dashes or parentheses.


 But how does one add a parenthetical at the end of a sentence (or fragment)? The dictionaries that use this form have decided thet the addition of other information, which would normally be set off beetween commas in the middle of a sentence, is now to be set off between a comma and a full stop when it occurs at the end of a sentence( fragment).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> _a thin metal blade on the bottom that is used for skating on ice?_ Nice try, but no. Why would the thin metal blade attached to the boot be more important than the boot itself? It's the boots we use to skate, not the blades.



The activity of skating on ice may require equipment other than boots and the like. While it may seem straightforward to think "that is used for skating" modifies "a boot," it is not necessary. Consider the following:

The formal areas were on the first floor , five bedrooms on the second , and a workshop and a room _used occasionally for skating on_ the third floor.

I use these knee pads for skating on ice.

Going back to the definition, without the comma, it'd be possible for "that is used for skating on ice" to modify the blade, as the latter can be considered the crucial component engaged in the activity. The ambiguity is more than potential.


----------



## billj

JulianStuart said:


> You cannot tell me what *I* find odd, sorry.


There's nothing odd about people making mistakes. It happens regularly and at all levels. Just read _The Economist_ if you want proof.  If you want to believe that dictionary editors are perfect, that's up to you but I wouldn't put the mortgage money on it.


JulianStuart said:


> *Assertions* have been made, yes.
> 
> Or perhaps one might consider that "dictionary-speak" (the conventions used by dictionaries for clarity and space reasons, not striving for adherence to the grammar rules prescribed for "normal written English") is a compromise and does not follow the "rules" of grammar? Like headlines don't. Are _they_ all "mistakes", too? I find the ellipsis in dictionary definitions similar to those in headlines. We frequently tell learners about the "non-grammatical" wording in definitions, and this is no exception - we would not teach them to use this structure in "standard" written English.



I don't think this is a case of 'dictionary-speak'. The use of a syntactically non-defining relative clause to convey semantically-defining information is neither space-saving nor disambiguating. In fact, it's more likely to cause confusion, as this thread demonstrates.

Incidentally, this thread is now 54 posts long and going nowhere.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

billj said:


> I don't think this is a case of 'dictionary-speak'. The use of a syntactically non-defining relative clause to convey semantically-defining information is neither space-saving nor disambiguating. In fact, it's more likely to cause confusion, as this thread demonstrates.




But none of the relative clauses discussed so far is a "syntactically non-defining relative clause," if you take "syntactically" seriously.  Punctuation has no role to play in the study of syntax, as the subject matter of the latter does not concern writing conventions. In speech, where we won't hear commas or other punctuation marks, the distinction between defining and non-defining clauses still exists. Linguists pay little attention to commas when determining whether a relative clause is defining or non-defining.

A true non-defining relative clause in English has "who" or "which," not "that." This fact alone renders it impossible to regard all the relative clauses in this thread as syntactically non-defining ones.


----------



## elroy

I agree 100% with raymond.  Commas can be used in English anytime to add clarity, and that’s what’s going on here.  It’s not “dictionary-speak”; this is a broadly valid usage and could be found anywhere.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

elroy said:


> I agree 100% with raymond.  Commas can be used in English anytime to add clarity, and that’s what’s going on here.  It’s not “dictionary-speak”; this is a broadly valid usage and could be found anywhere.



That said, I would avoid using commas that way if I were taking a writing test; I myself wouldn't run the risk of losing points over commas.
By the way, I have checked the American dictionary Merriam-Webster, which seems careful not to use commas in the situations described in this thread.

Could you find examples of such commas in other sources?


----------



## Cagey

Various points of view have been explained in detail. 
There will not be a consensus on this issue. 

Anyone is who consults the thread is invited to review the discussion and decide which view makes most sense to them. 

This thread is closed. 
Thank you to everyone who participated.  

Cagey,
moderator


----------

