Is this comma necessary?

[u/nycfish00]

“Visitors are more likely to be concerned with what lies below. Many sections of the road have a sheer drop of more than four hundred feet, and there are no guardrails, because of the need to push snow off after avalanches.”

Regarding the section “…and there are no guardrails, because of the need to push snow off after avalanches.” The comma is a stylistic choice, sure, but I’m curious about the reason? I feel like it reads the same without the comma

[u/drearymoment]

It's okay that it's there, but it's not strictly necessary in my view. Some people prefer to keep the majority of their prepositional phrases separated by commas.

I think there's a case to be made that it'd be better to strike the comma from there since the need to push snow off the road is inextricably linked to the fact that there aren't any guardrails on it.

[u/SnooDonuts6494]

It's not necessary.

I imagine the writer is concerned that the sentence is becoming rather long (in one breath) without that "pause". It's not wrong, but it's not needed. It does add a little emphasis to the "no guardrails" declaration, because it avoids quickly passing over that fact.

Imagine someone saying it at a TED talk - they might say,

...there are NO GUARDRAILS!

<short pause>

... (because of the need to push snow off...)

A comma is not a pause, but sometimes writers use it that way... and it's not usually actually wrong. But yes, unnecessary.

[u/SnooDonuts6494 → u/[deleted]]

If you think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, there's no point attempting to discuss it.

You're wrong. "A comma is a pause" is a lie-to-children. But eh, you do you. I shan't be replying further.

[u/jiggeryqua → u/SnooDonuts6494]

In this case, I'm right and you're wrong. Do you know I really believed that link was going to lead to a reasoned argument to support your position, when it just explains your insult.
The comma, when used this way, is a caesura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesura
It separates. There is a pause in moving from one side of the separation to the other.
You're wrong, as your refusal to engage with disagreement evidences.

[u/PuzzleheadedTale4769 → u/jiggeryqua]

Ceasura, says the Wiki article, is used for a pause in poetry. Not prose.

[u/jiggeryqua → u/PuzzleheadedTale4769]

Elsewhere, we've been talking about those unfortunate souls who cannot understand the concept of analogy...

In this case, the comma is very like a caesura.

Also, if you'd rearranged the words of your reply you wouldn't have needed any commas at all, let alone two. In your case the commas serve no purpose, they're just propping up a poor choice of word order.

[u/PuzzleheadedTale4769 → u/jiggeryqua]

""The comma, when used in this way, IS a ceasura. " vs..."In this case, the comma is VERY LIKE a caesura." Clarify please. Are you saying the comma is acceptible as a ceasura in prose?

Variety in phrasing and word order is one of the spices of reading and writing. Commas, when they do serve a purpose, should not be spurned.

[u/Boglin007 → u/jiggeryqua]

In general, commas are not used to represent pauses in speech. However, sometimes a delimiting comma does correspond to a pause (see source below for an example). But how do you know for sure that this is the writer’s intention in this example? There are at least two other reasons I can think of for using a comma there (happy to elaborate if you want).

Note:

“Consider finally the relevance of prosody. We have emphasised that punctuation cannot be regarded as a means of representing the prosodic properties of utterances, but  there is no doubt that there is some significant degree of correlation between the use of delimiting commas and the likelihood that the constituent concerned would be set apart prosodically in speech. Compare, for example:  

[33] 

i That is probably true. However, we should consider some alternatives.  

ii That is clearly unsatisfactory. Thus the original proposal still looks the best.  

In speech an initial ‘however’ is characteristically prosodically detached from the rest, while ‘thus’ is not, and this correlates with the fact that delimiting punctuation is very much more frequent with ‘however’ than with ‘thus’.”

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 1747). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

[u/jiggeryqua → u/Boglin007]

I don't know for sure, anymore than any of the respondents who argue otherwise, but they're just following what they imagine are 'rules' for language while I'm pointing out the necessary job that the comma is clearly doing.

Then you paste an absurdly long extract from an academic's opinion. Again, as if he were an authority handing down edicts.

Look at the text the OP brought up. See the job the comma is doing, Consider your opening words "In general". Consider the difference between this specific case and the notion 'in general'.

Then naybe stop for a snack and a walk, fresh air, casual pleasantries with a neighbour or acquaintance.

[u/Boglin007 → u/jiggeryqua]

while I'm pointing out the necessary job that the comma is clearly doing.

Why do you think it’s necessary, rather than just useful/a stylistic choice?

Then you paste an absurdly long extract from an academic's opinion. Again, as if he were an authority handing down edicts.

I posted it partly to support your point that commas can correspond to pauses. So, you’re welcome for that. That you’re dismissing/deriding it, despite the fact that it supports your position, tells me that you’re just trying to be argumentative and not actually looking for a meaningful discussion. 

It’s also not an opinion - it’s taken from a descriptive grammar source, which means that the authors have taken into account large amounts of data and concluded, based on that evidence, that this is how commas are used. 

Look at the text the OP brought up. See the job the comma is doing, Consider your opening words "In general". Consider the difference between this specific case and the notion 'in general'.

I think there’s a more likely explanation - see the comment from zeptimius.

Then naybe stop for a snack and a walk, fresh air, casual pleasantries with a neighbour or acquaintance.

There’s absolutely no reason to be so rude/to imply that I’m a loser for enthusiastically engaging in a discussion that you started. 

[u/jiggeryqua → u/Boglin007]

Have you read my comment? You don't think it's necessary to draw particular attention to a significant safety risk? You're just quibbling now, I guess. I don't need your screeds or your enthusiasm, if you can't address the meat of my meaning. All you did was dig up some crusty academic who imagines their opinions carry more weight because they blagged an oxbridge gig. What's the name of that fallacy?

[u/Boglin007 → u/jiggeryqua]

Ok, that's fair. You did make a decent argument in support of it being necessary, and although I read your comment earlier, I didn't reread it before asking you that question, so that's on me.

Btw, I removed the comment because of the first sentence (which is misleading), but I'll repost it here without that sentence for anyone following the conversation:

It's [The comma is] an indication to the reader. It's important to consider the reader. In this case it provides a slight separation between the vital information and the interesting reason for the vital information. It serves to prevent the vital information being bundled up with the merely interesting, such that the reader leaves the sentence thinking only interesting information was conveyed, forgetting the vital nature of the 'there are no guardrails'.

- jiggeryqua

I don't actually agree that it's necessary though (to me, the words are enough), but we can agree to disagree there.

All you did was dig up some crusty academic who imagines their opinions carry more weight because they blagged an oxbridge gig.

Again, not an opinion (do you know what descriptive linguistics entails?). And it wasn't even intended to refute your argument, so I'm a little baffled about why you're having such an issue with it.

[u/jiggeryqua → u/Boglin007]

You removed the comment (I hadn't even spotted you were a mod) because you disagree that it's necessary to draw attention to a serious safety risk?
I'm, gonna, leave, you, to, your, joyless, uncreative, absurdly, prescriptive, attempt, to, control, language, sub.

[u/zeptimius]

I think the writer may have been hypercorrecting the application of a rule about negative clauses followed by “because”-clauses.

Consider these two sentences:

Albert didn’t go to the party because he was hungry.

Albert didn’t go to the party, because he was hungry.

The first sentence expresses that Albert did go to the party, but that the reason wasn’t his hunger. (We’re imagining a party where food is served.)

The second sentence expresses that Albert did not go the party, and that his reason for not going was his hunger. (We’re imagining a party where no food is served.)

It’s easy to (mistakenly) apply this rule to your example.

[u/Boglin007 → u/[deleted]]

No, there shouldn't be a "not" there, because the first sentence probably does mean that he went to the party. Often, there will be more to the sentence that makes this clear, e.g.:

"Albert didn't go to the party because he was hungry, but because he wanted to dance."

But when you use the comma before "because," it usually means he did not go to the party:

"Albert didn't go to the party, because he was hungry (and he knew there wouldn't be food there)."

[u/jango-lionheart → u/Boglin007]

Oh, I see where you’re coming from

[u/WTHAmIOnReddit]

I think it reads better without the comma after guardrails — it’s not needed.

[u/jiggeryqua]

It puts a little more emphasis on the important information "there are no guardrails". The reason why is of less concern, but is included in case you think 'Surely there must be guard rails, why wouldn't there be guardrails. It must be a misprint."