Commas

“… it could have a material adverse effect …”

Adjectives, Adverbs, Commas, Devolution toward Simpler

I saw this in AT&T’s 2007 annual report.

Problem:
Either an adjective was used where an adverb was required, or a comma is missing.

Explanation:
The noun “material” can be used as an adjective to modify another noun, and adding “ly” converts it to an adverb.

The adjective “adverse” is modifying the noun “effect” in this example from the 2007 annual report from AT&T Inc., so the word “material” does not correctly modify the adjective “adverse” in this example.

Instead, we need one of two possible solutions (depending on the desired emphasis):

  1. If modifying “adverse” is the desired emphasis, then we need the adverb “materially” as the modifier.
  2. If modifying “effect” is the desired emphasis, then we need the adjective “material” as the modifier, but we also need a comma immediately following “material” because a second adjective (“adverse”) modifies “effect” (the noun).

I believe that the use of “material adverse” instead of “materially adverse” or “material, adverse” is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It’s simpler to omit the “ly” and the comma than to use one or the other.

Using “material adverse” lets one avoid thinking about whether to use the “ly” or the comma.

Solutions:
“… it could have a materially adverse effect …”
or
“… it could have a material, adverse effect …”

“Monster … Gold Angled Spade Connectors (2 Pair)”

Commas, Common English Blunders, Devolution toward Simpler, Number, Plurals

I saw this at Amazon.com.

Problem:
“Pair” is a singular noun being used incorrectly as a plural noun, and two commas are missing.

Explanation:
As I wrote last November, two of anything together is a single pair. Multiples of this means multiple pairs.

I continue to believe that use of “pair” instead of “pairs” helps to prove my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to say “pair” than to say “pairs”.

Beyond the “pair” problem, the product heading is missing a couple of commas.

“Gold” and “Angled” and “Spade” modify the noun “Connectors”; when one has multiple modifiers of a noun, commas should appear between the modifiers (in this case to get “Gold, Angled, Spade Connectors”).

I believe that omission of commas in a multiple-modifiers situation also is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis. It’s simpler to omit the commas than to include them, and advertising copywriters lean toward simpler text, even if it is grammatically incorrect and is more difficult to read.

Solution:
“Monster … Gold, Angled, Spade Connectors (2 Pairs)”

“It crashed in … Australia killing one cow.”

Commas, Common English Blunders

I saw this yesterday on a History Channel program about Skylab.

Problem:
A comma is missing.

Explanation:
The television program was about Skylab.

As the program went to a commercial break, a multi-sentence blurb appeared on the screen, and the narrator read the blurb about Skylab.

One of the sentences was “It crashed in a remote area of Western Australia killing one cow.”

The narrator was smart enough to pause after he said “Australia”; otherwise, the sentence would have sounded odd.

Commas tell readers where to put pauses when speaking a sentence.

“It crashed in a remote area of Western Australia” is a complete sentence on its own, and “killing one cow” is an aside that adds information, so “Australia” should be immediately followed by a comma.

Look at these two sentences:

  1. Jim hit the man running from the police.
  2. Jim hit the man, running from the police.

Sentence #1 means that Jim hit the man who was running from the police. In contrast, sentence #2 means that Jim hit the man while Jim was running from the police. See what a difference a comma makes?

Solution:
“It crashed in … Australia, killing one cow.”