woohoo921 wrote:
I realize that you are supposed to pick on bigger issues than comma usage, but why is a comma not needed after "2000"?
Many thanks and Happy Holidays
Hey
woohoo921Thank you for the wishes. Trust you enjoyed the holiday season as much as we did. Here's wishing you a stellar 2023!
You've asked yet another interesting question, and the answer eludes even the best minds out there. Allow me to help:
Rule of Thumb:If the prepositional phrase at the start of a sentence is separated by a comma, it modifies the entire sentence; but, if it is not separated by a comma, it only modifies the verb. Now, for many simple sentences, the presence or absence of a comma makes little difference to the meaning of the sentence. However, in certain complex cases, this distinction is very important and can effect the meaning of the sentence drastically.
Let's apply this rule to our official question to see whether this comma matters:
Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than it did during the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture to 1950.
Application & Observations:The first thing to notice here is that the prepositional phrase "between 1990 and 2000" is just
a verb modifier. It
only tells us the time of the action "grew". This can be easily understood if we rearrange the words in the sentence as so:
- The global economy grew between 1990 and 2000...more than it grew during the 10,000 years...
Now, by placing this prepositional phrase at the start of the sentence without a comma, we're only maintaining its identity as a modifier of the verb 'grew'.
However, if we were to separate this phrase with a comma, it would modify the entire clause after the comma. We'd get:
- Between 1990 and 2000, the global economy grew more than it did during the 10,000 years up till 1950.
Notice that, in this construct, we
distort the meaning of the sentence and extend the influence of this phrase from the verb 'grew' to the end of the clause, which includes
the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture to 1950. This is both
awkward and illogical.
So,
this is certainly a case wherein it's more appropriate to leave out the comma.
Let's look at some examples in which placing the comma is appropriate:
- On 10 May 1857, the sepoys at Meerut broke rank and turned on their commanding officers, killing some of them.
- Notice how breaking rank, turning on, and killing all happen "on 10 May 1857.
- In a royal proclamation made to the people of India, Queen Victoria promised equal opportunity of public service under British law, and also pledged to respect the rights of native princes.
- Notice that both "promised" and "pledged" took place "in the royal proclamation".
- By 1900, although the Congress had emerged as an all-India political organization, it did not have the support of most Indian Muslims.
- Both events "'emerged" and "did not have the support" took place "by 1900".
I hope this helps improve your understanding of verb-modifier phrases and sentence-modifier phrases.
Happy learning!
Abhishek