Comma usage question

FIG. 5 is a timing diagram illustrating two successive write operations performed by the memory device in FIG. 1, according to some embodiments of the present disclosure.

I don’t believe the comma in the above sentence is needed. Do you agree?

After looking at some rules, I think this is the reason:

  1. Don’t put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast).

INCORRECT: The cat scratched at the door, while I was eating.

CORRECT: She was still quite upset, although she had won the Oscar. (This comma use is correct because it is an example of extreme contrast)

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/

Edit: Opinions without any reference to rules are also very welcome.

It’s not needed grammatically, but it does tell the reader to pause, which makes the sentence more comprehensible.

Okay, thanks.

Maybe I’ve seen these sentences for so long that I don’t need any reminder to pause (and I think also my familiarity is such that I really almost don’t pause at all). But having said that, maybe I won’t delete the comma because I don’t like to make changes unless it’s very clear the changes are necessary.

I agree with Ironlady. Put a comma where you would pause with the voice if speaking. Long and complex sentences need commas more often, to help us understand the structure.

The reason you don’t want a comma in “The cat scratched at the door, while I was eating” is not because there’s no extreme contrast, btw; rather, it’s because the ‘while’ clause sets the time context, and when time context follows the main clause we don’t tend to separate it with a spoken pause or written comma, whereas the separation is optional when the time word or clause precedes the main clause (I bought a car yesterday. Yesterday I bought a car. Yesterday, I bought a car.)

1 Like

I assume this is a patent document, in which case the normal rules of logic and grammar are suspended and lawyerish nonsense steps in.

I suggest it would be more clearly written as: “in one embodiment of the present disclosure, the timing diagram of FIG. 5 illustrates two successive write operations performed by the memory device in FIG. 1”.

if you omit the comma in the original sentence, it becomes unclear what “according to some embodiments of the present disclosure” actually refers to: the memory device itself, or the specific timing of the write operation being described.

That’s about right! Your recommendation is a good one. Unfortunately, it’s in that part of the specification where the drawings are being introduced and so it has to stay roughly in the format I provided above.

In that case, I think it’s clearer (that is, there’s a lot less for lawyers to haggle over if it came to a court case) if the comma stays in. Just my opinion.