Comma usage when combining both “, say,” and “, for example,”
Considered on their own, I think all of these would be correct/accepted/common (right?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of, let's say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of 3, for example.
Even though you could probably argue that "say" and "for example" are semantically synonymous (that is, redundantly repeated), the sentence somehow didn't feel complete when I only had this (why not?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
which led me to feel like adding ", for example" was what I needed:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3, for example.
It sounds good in my head or when I say it out loud. But when I look at it, the number of commas seems excessive, and you can't even tell which words are being set off (which ones are the adverbial phrases... or something?) and which words are the main sentence structure that they're being set off from.
Any advice on the "right" way to combine these?
Any real-world examples of combining 2 phrases like that that are normally set apart by commas?
If I drop the first comma, then "say" is no longer set apart:
We could require a minimum score of say, 3, for example.
Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option.
Elsewhere I've seen it suggested to use parentheses or em dashes to make it clearer what is being set apart, and since removing commas can be tricky. But there doesn't seem to be a way to make use of parentheses or em dashes here that I can see.
Worse:
We could require a minimum score of—say—3, for example.
Also not an improvement:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3 (for example).
(It makes those seem like optional words, when I want it to feel like part of the main flow when spoken.
So I think the original version with 3 commas is my preference so far but I'm open to ideas...
commas sentence-structure adverbials
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Considered on their own, I think all of these would be correct/accepted/common (right?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of, let's say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of 3, for example.
Even though you could probably argue that "say" and "for example" are semantically synonymous (that is, redundantly repeated), the sentence somehow didn't feel complete when I only had this (why not?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
which led me to feel like adding ", for example" was what I needed:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3, for example.
It sounds good in my head or when I say it out loud. But when I look at it, the number of commas seems excessive, and you can't even tell which words are being set off (which ones are the adverbial phrases... or something?) and which words are the main sentence structure that they're being set off from.
Any advice on the "right" way to combine these?
Any real-world examples of combining 2 phrases like that that are normally set apart by commas?
If I drop the first comma, then "say" is no longer set apart:
We could require a minimum score of say, 3, for example.
Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option.
Elsewhere I've seen it suggested to use parentheses or em dashes to make it clearer what is being set apart, and since removing commas can be tricky. But there doesn't seem to be a way to make use of parentheses or em dashes here that I can see.
Worse:
We could require a minimum score of—say—3, for example.
Also not an improvement:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3 (for example).
(It makes those seem like optional words, when I want it to feel like part of the main flow when spoken.
So I think the original version with 3 commas is my preference so far but I'm open to ideas...
commas sentence-structure adverbials
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option." That's not a sufficient reason to reject it as an option. It seems perfectly grammatical to me—and also something that I would write, personally. But if you think it looks odd, then rewrite the sentence.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Thanks for the feedback! Maybe I'm ruling out that option unnecessarily? Maybe this is too subjective of a question...
– Tyler Rick
yesterday
add a comment |
Considered on their own, I think all of these would be correct/accepted/common (right?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of, let's say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of 3, for example.
Even though you could probably argue that "say" and "for example" are semantically synonymous (that is, redundantly repeated), the sentence somehow didn't feel complete when I only had this (why not?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
which led me to feel like adding ", for example" was what I needed:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3, for example.
It sounds good in my head or when I say it out loud. But when I look at it, the number of commas seems excessive, and you can't even tell which words are being set off (which ones are the adverbial phrases... or something?) and which words are the main sentence structure that they're being set off from.
Any advice on the "right" way to combine these?
Any real-world examples of combining 2 phrases like that that are normally set apart by commas?
If I drop the first comma, then "say" is no longer set apart:
We could require a minimum score of say, 3, for example.
Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option.
Elsewhere I've seen it suggested to use parentheses or em dashes to make it clearer what is being set apart, and since removing commas can be tricky. But there doesn't seem to be a way to make use of parentheses or em dashes here that I can see.
Worse:
We could require a minimum score of—say—3, for example.
Also not an improvement:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3 (for example).
(It makes those seem like optional words, when I want it to feel like part of the main flow when spoken.
So I think the original version with 3 commas is my preference so far but I'm open to ideas...
commas sentence-structure adverbials
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Considered on their own, I think all of these would be correct/accepted/common (right?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of, let's say, 3.
We could require a minimum score of 3, for example.
Even though you could probably argue that "say" and "for example" are semantically synonymous (that is, redundantly repeated), the sentence somehow didn't feel complete when I only had this (why not?):
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3.
which led me to feel like adding ", for example" was what I needed:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3, for example.
It sounds good in my head or when I say it out loud. But when I look at it, the number of commas seems excessive, and you can't even tell which words are being set off (which ones are the adverbial phrases... or something?) and which words are the main sentence structure that they're being set off from.
Any advice on the "right" way to combine these?
Any real-world examples of combining 2 phrases like that that are normally set apart by commas?
If I drop the first comma, then "say" is no longer set apart:
We could require a minimum score of say, 3, for example.
Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option.
Elsewhere I've seen it suggested to use parentheses or em dashes to make it clearer what is being set apart, and since removing commas can be tricky. But there doesn't seem to be a way to make use of parentheses or em dashes here that I can see.
Worse:
We could require a minimum score of—say—3, for example.
Also not an improvement:
We could require a minimum score of, say, 3 (for example).
(It makes those seem like optional words, when I want it to feel like part of the main flow when spoken.
So I think the original version with 3 commas is my preference so far but I'm open to ideas...
commas sentence-structure adverbials
commas sentence-structure adverbials
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
asked Dec 18 at 21:43
Tyler Rick
1012
1012
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Tyler Rick is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
"Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option." That's not a sufficient reason to reject it as an option. It seems perfectly grammatical to me—and also something that I would write, personally. But if you think it looks odd, then rewrite the sentence.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Thanks for the feedback! Maybe I'm ruling out that option unnecessarily? Maybe this is too subjective of a question...
– Tyler Rick
yesterday
add a comment |
"Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option." That's not a sufficient reason to reject it as an option. It seems perfectly grammatical to me—and also something that I would write, personally. But if you think it looks odd, then rewrite the sentence.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Thanks for the feedback! Maybe I'm ruling out that option unnecessarily? Maybe this is too subjective of a question...
– Tyler Rick
yesterday
"Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option." That's not a sufficient reason to reject it as an option. It seems perfectly grammatical to me—and also something that I would write, personally. But if you think it looks odd, then rewrite the sentence.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
"Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option." That's not a sufficient reason to reject it as an option. It seems perfectly grammatical to me—and also something that I would write, personally. But if you think it looks odd, then rewrite the sentence.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Thanks for the feedback! Maybe I'm ruling out that option unnecessarily? Maybe this is too subjective of a question...
– Tyler Rick
yesterday
Thanks for the feedback! Maybe I'm ruling out that option unnecessarily? Maybe this is too subjective of a question...
– Tyler Rick
yesterday
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Tyler Rick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f477697%2fcomma-usage-when-combining-both-say-and-for-example%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Tyler Rick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tyler Rick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tyler Rick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tyler Rick is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f477697%2fcomma-usage-when-combining-both-say-and-for-example%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
"Now at quick glance it looks like 3 is an appositive, when it is not, but is rather an essential part of the object. So that seems to rule out this option." That's not a sufficient reason to reject it as an option. It seems perfectly grammatical to me—and also something that I would write, personally. But if you think it looks odd, then rewrite the sentence.
– Jason Bassford
2 days ago
Thanks for the feedback! Maybe I'm ruling out that option unnecessarily? Maybe this is too subjective of a question...
– Tyler Rick
yesterday