Some commas are necessary, but others are optional.
One error that’s made all the time, including in the mainstream media that should know better, is failing to use a second comma where it’s required, usually to mark a phrase that describes the subject of a sentence…
Eg, assume there’s a footballer called John Smith who’s been charged with assault.
There are two correct possibilities.
One is to have no commas at all: John Smith the footballer has been charged with assault.
The other is to have two: John Smith, the footballer, has been charged …
Which of those two alternatives you choose is a matter of taste.
What is definitely not a matter of taste, but is just plain wrong, is to use the first of a pair of commas but not the second: John Smith, the footballer has been charged …
I’ve started on books by a hitherto unread author where the first page contains so many adjectives, or so many commas, that I simply stop reading them.
Two adjectives at the very most, preferably one, to describe a noun.
I’m not defending it. I’m just pointing out it wasn’t mentioned, and may be a more common way to write it, considering it follows some people’s normal ‘speaking pauses’.
Fair enough, but it’s definitely wrong. And to be honest I don’t think in normal speech anyone would pause after the word “footballer” if they hadn’t also paused, even just a little bit, before “the”.
An American academic and one of the foremost experts on English grammar Diane Larson-Freeman defines grammar as: “The way we wish to present ourselves.” What l like about this definition is that it is practical, it does away with any mention of rules which is what what most people around the world think of whenever grammar is mentioned. It is a totally practical definition and she is spot on. Meaning can still be derived with errors, but the clearer the expression, the more meaningful it is.
