+0
" I was astonished when I saw Peter, quarrelling with his neighbour. "

" I was astonished when I saw Peter quarrelling with his neighbour. "

Do these two statements (with and without comma after Peter ) carry a different meaning?

What are their differences?

Thanks!
+0
kenny1999A. I was astonished when I saw Peter, quarrelling with his neighbour.
This is catenative see. No comma!
kenny1999B. Quarrelling with his neighbour, I was astonished when I saw Peter
As you say, this one has a different meaning. Here, you were quarrelling with Peter's neighbour.

CJ
Comments  
Hi kenny1999

They don't carry a different meaning. But I would write the second one because there seems to be no need to add a comma. If you say it out loud though, the pause created by the comma would add to the effect that you were astonished. It's like saying 'I was astonished when I saw Peter, of all people, quarreling with his neighbour.'

Cheers
PBF
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
yea

but will these two carry a different meaning?

A. I was astonished when I saw Peter, quarrelling with his neighbour.

B. Quarrelling with his neighbour, I was astonished when I saw Peter

For A, it is "Peter" quarrel with the neighbour.

while for B, it is "I" quarrel with the neighbour,

am I right?
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.