Only children, polygamists, and commas
Dear editors,
Today, I want to offer a refresher on the topic of essential and nonessential clauses. If grammar jargon makes your eyes glaze over, don’t worry: It’s actually pretty simple.
An essential clause is part of a sentence that provides critical information about that sentence (you may have also heard it called a restrictive clause). In other words, you couldn’t take out that clause without losing the meaning of the sentence. Essential clauses don’t need to be set off with commas.
For example: The man who keeps a pet tiger in his backyard loves olives.
If you took out the bolded portion, you wouldn’t know which man the sentence was referring to; you need it to keep the meaning of your sentence, so you should not add commas.
A nonessential clause (or nonrestrictive clause) provides extra information about the sentence; you could remove it and still retain the meaning of your sentence. These are set off with commas.
Example: P.T. Barnum, who kept a pet tiger in his backyard, loved olives.
In this sentence it’s clear which man you’re talking about; his tiger-keeping habits are just a fun bonus. So in this case, you’d put commas around the clause. (Note that there’s a comma both before and after the clause; lots of people forget one or the other.)
Here’s another example: Let’s say you wanted to talk about your daughter’s new restaurant. Your daughter happens to have a pet tiger. If she’s your only daughter, it’s obvious who you’re talking about in the sentence below, so the bolded clause is nonessential:
My daughter, who has a pet tiger, just opened a restaurant.
But if you have two daughters and only one of them has a pet tiger, that clause becomes essential in specifying which daughter you’re referring to:
My daughter who has a pet tiger just opened a restaurant.
Likewise, if you’re writing about someone’s husband, you can safely assume that they only have one, so the husband’s name should be set off with commas. The bolded clause is nonessential:
Her husband, John Smith, has a pet tiger.
But if you’re writing about someone who has more than one husband, that clause becomes essential in specifying which husband you’re referring to:
Her husband John Smith has a pet tiger.
See it in action
A couple examples of related slip-ups from our sites:
Wrong: The French newspaper, Le Figaro, broke the story.
Right: The French newspaper Le Figaro broke the story.
Explanation: There is more than one French newspaper. Thus, the clause “Le Figaro” is essential in specifying which one you mean.
Wrong: LA-based cook, author, and TV star, Simon Majumdar, called it “another sad loss for the culinary world.”
Right: LA-based cook, author, and TV star Simon Majumdar called it “another sad loss for the culinary world.”
Explanation: There is more than one LA-based cook, author, and TV star, so the clause “Simon Majumdar” is essential in specifying who you mean.
If you find this hard to remember, think: Extra information needs extra commas.
Thank you to Vox dot com copy chief Tanya Pai for her help with this email.
Copy News
Hey, city site editors, are you unsure about when to send a story my way for a copy edit? Check out this brand-new doc. The gist of it: If you’re working on a story you expect to take off, have overarching questions about terminology and style, or want another set of eyes on a prestige piece, shoot me a message on Slack and I’ll take a look.
Also, a reminder that our style guides have sections on corrections and updates. So if you’re correcting an article or updating a breaking-news story, check with the Eater or Curbed style guide for our preferred terminology.
The history of “mmhmm” (but one small note: It actually is in the dictionary). The latest “First Words” column is all about the word “obvious.” And because it’s a great column, check out the one about “epidemics,” too.
Have a good week,
Emma