In certain short clauses, commas are probably not necessary (as in Dimsum's last sentence), but certainly where it appears e.g. in a subject noun phrase, it is appositive (not 'parenthetical'), as the verb number is governed by the subject itself:

1. The question has been answered a few times already , but has not been answered. Okay to omit the subject in the sentences like the above (omitting the subject in the second clause), right? A comma before but is necessary even when the

Jaleel.nt, in the first instance, we deal with a phenomenon that is conventionally known as a passive gerund ; the whole clause with being... can be substituted with a noun phrase, eg, ...this award . Therefore, we refer to being... as a nominal

Hi, no I'm not from there; it is a sentence I got from the internet. Um, yea I know what an adverb clause expressess. The only reason I ask is because the noun clause was followed by a main clause (and a comma). It seems weird to have a main

<< What's stopping the pronoun being the object of the clause. >> I think this would only work as an appositive, but it would need a comma, and would make no sense contextually. What's stopping the truck, being more than

Hi, Clive: Yes, I know, but I thought I'd keep it the same way the writer presented it to me. It is an ugly sentence; that's for sure! I would replace the semicolon with a comma. Very few people seem to grasp when a semicolon can be used,

It should be used sparingly for stylistic purposes , that is, to introduce an emphatic, short sentence. Parenthetical elements of a sentence can be removed with the essential meaning of the sentence remaining. Appositives are always deemed as

I use this form pretty much exactly, on a daily basis. I haven't thought much about it, but it seems like any appositive is paranthetical, but not all parenthetical imformation would constitute an appositive. (It may be an "aside.")

;an external conflict between Trujillo and society= is this an ellipse clause? Now you have answered the question. Does this series of words contain a verb? No, they do not. Therefore, it cannot be a clause and must be a phrase. The head word of

No, no, what you have said is crystal clear! It all makes sense; I have never heard of the rule that the first 'that' can only be omitted. In regards to question 2, I have one question. The comma rules are rather simple for me; I have