subscribe via RSS

Blog

Nuts about commas

Read more

Can I really get another post out of the copy on a peanut bag? It seems I can. (And for those who are wondering, yes, I do get through a fair few peanuts. I read the packets while I’m illicitly munching them between meals.)

I’m sure many a client has heaved a sigh over their copywriter’s tiresome insistence that a comma must be inserted at some particular point. When I used to check the printer’s proofs at a publishing house, the production manager would be incredulous at the idea of incurring big cost for such a footling change. (The cost was for running out patches and ‘cutting in’ or even ‘doubling in’ on the imposed film before remaking the ozalid – ask your parents, kids.)

Yet there are times when this tiny punctuation mark can make a huge difference to the meaning of a sentence. And it may be that the sentence is quite an important one. Consider this text, which appears on a packet of salted peanuts from a leading UK supermarket chain:

Do not give this product to small children who can choke on nuts

The literal meaning here is ‘if there are any small children around who can choke on nuts, don’t give them this product’, with the implied meaning ‘if there are any small children who can’t choke on nuts, it’s OK for them’.

Now consider how the phrase should have read (with comma inserted):

Do not give this product to small children, who can choke on nuts

Here, the meaning is very different: ‘Small children can choke on nuts. Don’t give them this product.’

The problem stems from the use of ‘who’ in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. If we were talking about something inanimate, rather than children, we would have to change the wording as well as insert the comma. For example, note the difference in meaning between these two phrases:

He stopped the first car that was driven by a woman.
He stopped the first car, which was driven by a woman.

Loyal readers may recognise this as the sentence I used to explain the difference between that and which many moons ago.

As I hope I’ve made clear, these grammar points aren’t dead customs or academic debating points. They really do affect meaning, and if you’re giving health advice, that meaning is important. That’s why copywriters go nuts over ’em.

news , information,business,investment,helth news,business,politics news and information

Tagged with: , , ,

Comments

Tweets that mention Nuts about commas | ABC Copywriting blog -- Topsy.com
August 23 2010 at 8:49 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Craig Killick, Tom Albrighton, Tom Albrighton, Tom Albrighton, Julie Lawford and others. Julie Lawford said: RT @ABC_Copywriting: New post: Nuts about commas http://goo.gl/fb/vDnuB [...]

Katy
August 24 2010 at 5:31 pm

I found this really interesting – and so useful! :)

Jamie
September 11 2010 at 12:05 pm

Nice post, enjoyed it. Interesting

Nigel
August 25 2011 at 11:36 am

Tom, like you, I’m a stickler for this sort of stuff (especially hyphens). However, I think the difference in meaning would be lost on the vast majority of the audience. (Standards of grammar in the UK are diabolical.) It’s like that mobile-phone strap: ‘We’re better, connected’. Far, far too clever for its own good.

Nigel
August 25 2011 at 2:53 pm

I’m also fairly Nazi about using that and which correctly. Why can’t the national press get this right?

What do you think?

 

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook

Stay in touch

Enter your details for regular updates. (*=required)




Contact

T 01603 454 111

E info@abccopywriting.com

ABC Copywriting
100 George Borrow Road
Norwich
Norfolk NR4 7HU UK

Company

ABC Copywriting is a trading name of ABC Business Communications Ltd

A company registered in England and Wales number 5654005

VAT registration number 876 5097 76

Copyright

Identity by Knight

Site by ABC

Content, design, code, video and audio © copyright 2009, 2010 ABC Copywriting

All third-party trade marks are the property of their respective owners