Do I use a comma in this sentence??
I was astonished to find out that in Denmark, there are no flowers.
[random sentence but same structure are my original sentence]
Do I put the comma after denmark?
Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
I was astonished to find out that in Denmark, you cannot grow your own flowers. ** This is better..same question please
U can even try it this also.
"I was astonished to find out that, in Denmark, you cannot grow your own flowers."
This particular sentence -- because the intervening phrase is so short and integral to the sentence -- ought probably to have no commas at all.
In general, this construction (the nominal "that" clause with an introductory phrase or clause embedded within it) is somewhat problematic. You won't find it treated in many punctuation guides, and opinions on how it ought to be punctuated are divided.
Depending upon where you look, you might find any one of these three approaches recommended --
. . . . that, , . . . .
. . . . that , . . . .
. . . . that . . . .
In the first instance, the intervening element is treated as would be any other interrupting element in the sentence, so it is set off with commas surrounding it and separating it in one piece from the rest of the sentence.
In the second instance, the intervening element is instead viewed as an introductory element within the "that" clause, and so it is punctuated with one comma following it, as befits any other introductory element at the beginning of a clause.
These first two strategies thus represent alternative strategies of punctuation, alternative schools of thought. Proponents of the second approach criticize the first by saying that it treats the intervening element as through it were nonrestrictive (or nonessential), which means that proponents of the second *might* adopt the first in those cases where the intervening element truly were nonrestrictive.
By contrast, the third strategy is often not an alternative, but one that followers of either of the other two baseline strategies might follow under the right circumstances.
Proponents of the first strategy might adopt the third in those cases where the intervening element truly is very integral to the sentence, whether long or short, such that it seems not to interrupt the thought.
Proponents of the second strategy tend to adopt the third in those cases where the intervening element -- viewed as an introductory piece in the "that" clause -- would not ordinarily be set off as an introductory element even at the beginning of the sentence.
For sentences in which the intervening piece can be read very clearly as integral to the sentence, that third strategy tends to win out. In many others, however, any one of those three might apply, depending upon which authority you follow.
You can see this division of thought acknowledged here, though it is not further explained --
Now, all of this having been said, it seems to me that the trend has been for some time away from the first approach noted above, the approach that uses both commas -- unless the intervening element is very clearly nonrestrictive -- in favor of the second approach.
So, for instance, _Words Into Type_ has this to say --
Do not use a comma before an internal adverbial clause preceding the main clause on which it depends, unless the clause is clearly nonrestrictive and can be read as a parenthetical element.
WRONG: Dark walls of rock rise steeply from the shores, and, when it is calm, snowcapped peaks and blue glaciers are mirrored in the water of the strait.
RIGHT: Dark walls of rock rise steeply from the shores, and when it is calm, snowcapped peaks and blue glaciers are mirrored in the water of the strait.
WRONG: This means that, if the cylinder is full of gas when the piston is at the bottom, the gas wall will occupy only one fifth of the volume . . .
RIGHT: This means that if the cylinder is full of gas when the piston is at the bottom, the gas wall will occupy only one fifth of the volume . . . (196-7)
And _The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage_ says of these constructions that the comma directly following the "that" is incorrect, but that the comma following the entire opening phrase is optional (254). The example offered is this, where the first approach with two commas is deemed incorrect, but either of the other two is judged to be correct --
WRONG: The researchers are convinced that, with enough time and money, a cure will be found. [Two commas]
RIGHT: The researchers are convinced that with enough time and money a cure will be found. [No commas]
RIGHT: The researchers are convinced that with enough time and money, a cure will be found. [One comma only, following the opening phrase within the clause]
However, the guide also notes that some authorities fall in instead with that first approach.
The best and most complete discussion of this point (and related points) that I've ever found is in _The Gregg Reference Manual_, which has 40 pages devoted to commas alone. If you have this manual, you should take a look at paras. 127d, 130d, 131c, and 136a.
With respect specifically to elements at the beginning of a clause within the sentence, _Gregg_ spells out the approach recommended by _Words Into Type_ far more comprehensively, dealing with intervening clauses at paragraph 130d and intervening phrases at 136a. In both cases, these phrases and clauses are to be punctuated in the manner of introductory elements in the embedded clause (so, one comma only, following the introductory element), *unless* the element is quite clearly a sentence interrupter.
Some examples from 130d --
Liz believes that before we can make a decision, we must have all the facts. [Note one comma only]
I think that when you read the Weissberg study, you will gain a new perspective on the situation. [One comma only]
Harry says that whenever possible, he leaves his office by six. [One comma only]
but, by contrast . . .
He said that, as you may already know, he was planning to take early retirement. [Two commas, because this is very clearly a sentence interrupter]
Some examples from 136a --
The salesclerk explained that to get the best results from your dishwasher, you should follow the printed instructions. [One comma only]
We would like to announce that in response to the many requests of our customers, we are opening a branch in Kenmore Square. [One comma only]
Last year we had a number of thefts, and in 2004 our entire inventory was destroyed by fire. [Note that no comma is needed after the short introductory prepositional phrase]