Zompist Bboard Again

I've seen this kind of thing a lot, in publications printed over decades, where one comma is used where logic, common sense, and good taste would specify none or two:

"The nasty, sadistic conlanger bound the morphemes"

The second comma should go after "sadistic". Of what rule of punctuation am I ignorant?

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:30 pm I've seen this kind of thing a lot, in publications printed over decades, where one comma is used where logic, common sense, and good taste would specify none or two:

"The nasty, sadistic conlanger bound the morphemes"

The second comma should go after "sadistic". Of what rule of punctuation am I ignorant?

Umm this is correct with one comma, as "nasty" and "sadistic" are two separate adjectives that both modify "conlanger".

Why is it then that every time I see it a little voice in my head says "There's a comma missing there!"? Bad education?

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:40 pm Why is it then that every time I see it a little voice in my head says "There's a comma missing there!"? Bad education?

because another use of a comma is to indicate an inserted phrase or clause, in which case it goes on both sides of the insert to offset it: The banker, who had only recently been hired, was saddened to learn he was being laid off. it sounds like your brain is seeing the first example and incorrectly flagging it as the second

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:40 pm Why is it then that every time I see it a little voice in my head says "There's a comma missing there!"? Bad education?

Well, whenever I see two commas there a little voice in my head says ‘What uneducated barbarian put that extra comma in?’. I guess I now know the answer…

(In my view, the issue with a comma between the adjective and noun is easier to see when there’s only a single adjective: *‘The sadistic, conlanger bound the morphemes.’.)

Perhaps, like me, you're taking a pause, after sadistic...

chicago manual of style, 13th edition, section 5.45:

Separate two or more adjectives by commas if each modifies the noun alone:

• Shelley had proved a faithful, sincere friend.
• Rocco had said that it was going to be a long, hot summer.

If the first adjective modifies the idea expressed by the combination of the second adjective and the noun, no comma should be used:

• He had no patience with the traditional political institutions of his country.
• Blanche stood beside a tall blue spruce.

Emily wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2026 3:19 am chicago manual of style, 13th edition, section 5.45:

Separate two or more adjectives by commas if each modifies the noun alone:

• Shelley had proved a faithful, sincere friend.
• Rocco had said that it was going to be a long, hot summer.

If the first adjective modifies the idea expressed by the combination of the second adjective and the noun, no comma should be used:

• He had no patience with the traditional political institutions of his country.
• Blanche stood beside a tall blue spruce.

That's how I always understood it, and I personally normally don't care much about such style guides.

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:40 pm Why is it then that every time I see it a little voice in my head says "There's a comma missing there!"? Bad education?

I would say it was a result of overdone prescriptivism. (It looks to me like an aping of Latin's rule to join adjectives with et or -que.) I was taught to put the comma in, but I normally reject that training. When I think about it, which I usually don't, I tend to follow the Chicago Manual of Style's advice in this matter. (I came up with the conditional rule independently - I hadn't seen my considered view advocated before.) What's a nice (= pleasant) sadistic conlanger, as opposed to a nasty one? One that tortures your enemies?

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:40 pm Why is it then that every time I see it a little voice in my head says "There's a comma missing there!"? Bad education?

Maybe because the comma also represents a slight pause in speech, and when you speak the sentence, you're doing so in such a way that there's a slight pause between both pairs of words. Thus, you naturally want to put a comma between both pairs.

whatever the rules,
spoken language is my only compass,
for writing...
(unlike conlanging...)

I just encountered an issue with comma usage and the order of modifiers. To Raphael's review of presidential candidates for the USA, I wanted to add something along the lines of "The Democrats need a candidate with the strength of character to presidentially personally slay the conservative majority on the Supreme Court". I rejected this, because "personally presidentially" felt far more natural, though I'm not sure about the desirability of having a comma. Eventually, I found the best wording so far to be the somewhat clumsy "The Democrats need a candidate with the strength of character to presidentially slay the conservative majority on the Supreme Court personally".

FWIW, I did contemplate the possibility of Trump shooting dead a justice or two at the recent State of the Union. I obviously don't know whether the thought crossed their minds, but I presume Trump could have been impeached and convicted if he had done so. I'm not sure whether he could then have been criminally committed.

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:30 pm I've seen this kind of thing a lot, in publications printed over decades, where one comma is used where logic, common sense, and good taste would specify none or two:

"The nasty, sadistic conlanger bound the morphemes"

The second comma should go after "sadistic". Of what rule of punctuation am I ignorant?

in my sophomore year of highschool, my english teacher taught¹ that where commas are used to separate items in a list, american² english does not put a comma after the final item, but that british² english does. I have no idea the validity of this.

¹ to this day I've never trusted a single thing she taught, but it bears mentioning here.
² my sophomore english teacher was also very much of the opinion that american english was the pure, superior version of english.

/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 12:15 pm

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:30 pm I've seen this kind of thing a lot, in publications printed over decades, where one comma is used where logic, common sense, and good taste would specify none or two:

"The nasty, sadistic conlanger bound the morphemes"

The second comma should go after "sadistic". Of what rule of punctuation am I ignorant?

in my sophomore year of highschool, my english teacher taught¹ that where commas are used to separate items in a list, american² english does not put a comma after the final item, but that british² english does. I have no idea the validity of this.

After the final item? How can anyone put a comma after the final item?

(A comma before the final item is a well-known American/British difference, but it goes the other way — see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 12:23 pm

/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 12:15 pm

alice wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2026 2:30 pm I've seen this kind of thing a lot, in publications printed over decades, where one comma is used where logic, common sense, and good taste would specify none or two:

"The nasty, sadistic conlanger bound the morphemes"

The second comma should go after "sadistic". Of what rule of punctuation am I ignorant?

in my sophomore year of highschool, my english teacher taught¹ that where commas are used to separate items in a list, american² english does not put a comma after the final item, but that british² english does. I have no idea the validity of this.

After the final item? How can anyone put a comma after the final item?

(A comma before the final item is a well-known American/British difference, but it goes the other way — see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma.)

I had the exact same thought here.