Thanks!

Just to be clear, I’m happy about the commas round ‘after heating it’, the question now is whether you need a comma before the ‘and’, i.e. “I opened the tin of beans, and, after heating it, ate the contents”.

From what I’ve read elsewhere it seem that adding commas before conjunctions depends on sentence length and is a bit of a grey area.

I can see, for example, that it might be necessary if I wrote “It was only after spectacularly failing my cordon bleu culinary course that I opened the tin of beans, and, after heating it, ate the contents to assuage my bitter disappointment”.

Is this comma necessary, and is there a rule I can follow, or is it a matter of personal style?

I’m not aiming for ‘stream of consciousness’, but I feel too many commas can make sentences clunky.

Hi Piers,

That could be described as a time phrase, yes, or more technically an adverbial of time (as you rightly say not a clause as there’s no verb). The comma might be a bit debatable, not everyone would agree, but I would personally suggest it is necessary there, as you are using the commas to parenthesise the phrase in an unexpected/not typical location (as the time phrase would usually come at the end).

Hope this helps!

Phil

This is part of an ongoing conversation about correct use of commas, specifically whether a comma is required before the ‘and’, and I want to be technically correct when describing sentence structure!

Thanks.

Hi Sadra,

Essentially yes – it’s always tricky to offer complete absolutes in English, as there are always exceptions, but generally speaking for the future the time clauses will be in the present tense, for the present we’ll most likely also use present tense time clauses, and past sentences are likely to use past tenses. There are cases where there will be other mixes, but it’s essentially a case of logically connecting the time clause tense with the other tense – when it comes to the future, we typically use the present tense for arrangements/schedules, so this logically fits future time clauses, which will be established points in time (whereas the other future tense forms, “will” and “going to be”, usually have some determinate quality, for less established factual points in time). I hope this makes sense!

Phil

You mentioned that “Time clauses only use different rules for future tenses; when talking about past or present events, you can generally use regular tenses for time clauses.”.
Does this mean that if we’re talking about future arrangements, we must use the present tense in the conditional sentence?

On other hand, if we’re not talking about the future, we can use any kind of tenses in time clauses. Am I right? (At this point, does this rule apply to both clauses? I mean can we use any tenses in both the time clause and the other clause?)

I have a little problem with tenses in this grammar.

Regards,
Sadra

Hi Michael, thanks for pointing that one out. Occasionally using plurals with group nouns is one of my language vices (and one I do think can be argued in colloquial usage) but certainly, for accuracy’s sake this one should be singular.

Thanks Kate, yes, you’re right thanks for pointing that out – that should’ve been present perfect for the past possibility, I’ll edit that.

‘if things were going to improve, I would be the one responsible’, to make it about a past possibility.”
Isn’t it unlikely case in the future not past?

Hi Vegito,

Yes that’s the idea, you have understood correctly.

Phil