I've got a sentence where the independent clause is in the front, a contrasting phrase follows, and then a simile is made to modify or elaborate the contrasting phrase. I am wondering where commas should go in this sentence. One rule is to set off the contrasting phrase/ clause from the rest of the sentence. The other is setting off dependent clauses. The sentence is:
a) Roman sat, quietly, in his seat, not giggling and chit-chatting, like the other kids from his school.
I believe that the commas setting off quietly are appropriate or not and depend on the meaning I am trying to convey. I am also quite sure that the comma before not is appropriate. If the sentence becomes:
b) Roman sat, quietly, in his seat, like the other kids from his school.
Then you lose the meaning of the sentence because the other kids were not sitting quietly. If you look at most examples of contrasting phrases that get set off by commas, you will notice that the meaning is not lost:
c) She will go to to school in New York, not Chicago, to study law.
Excise the contrasting phrase, and:
d) She will go to school in New York to study law.
Similarly,
e) It was her money, not her charm or personality, that first attracted him.
Excise the contrasting phrase, and:
f) It was her money that first attracted him.
So, what do I do here?
Best Answer
This sentence has stilted and contrived syntax. It's very unpleasant to read. If you want this word order and all those confounding commas, then give it the structure of verse:
The sentence is ambiguous, however. Too many commas (all those postterm pregnant pauses are unnecessary and undesirable, unless the sentence is in free verse) and the wrong word order.
It wants to say:
So why not say:
or
If you drop the contrasting phrase, you lose something, yes, but your sentence
incorrectly disambiguates the sentence. It has to be
Then the meaning of the original isn't lost.