+0
Hi. Do you think we should almost always (possibly always?) place a comma before a subordinate clause when an independent clause precedes it?

I think the word "providing" is a subordinate conjunction (if I am not mistaken), but I think we usually see sentences with a comma before it when an independent clause is before it. (I hope I phrased my question correctly to reflect what I wanted to say.)
+0
No, not at all. Restrictive subordinators would not normally be preceded by commas.
+0
AnonymousDo you think we should almost always (possibly always?) place a comma before a subordinate clause when an independent clause precedes it?
I agree with Mr. Micawber. In fact, I think you'll find the comma is more often omitted between a main clause and a following subordinate clause. This is especially true with the conjunctions if and because.

CJ
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Comments  
Thank you, Mr. M and CalifJim.

So would you say that eventhough all are subordinate clauses, if one is restrictive, it will not normally preceded by commas?

Sorry but woud you answer this, too? Could we have several subordinate clauses in one sentence like I seem to have done with my above question? Please take a look at the part "eventhough all are subordinate clauses, if one is restrictive."
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
AnonymousSo would you say that eventhough even though all are subordinate clauses, if one is restrictive, it will not normally preceded by commas?
That seems reasonable, yes. However, I am not familiar with the term "restrictive" being used for any but relative (adjectival) subordinate clauses. That leaves out many other kinds of clauses.
AnonymousCould we have several subordinate clauses in one sentence like I seem to have done with my above question?
You can have as many subordinate clauses in one sentence as you like. Emotion: smile

CJ