woman came into my store(,) wearing a hat

[ademoglu]

Hi,

. . . And the young woman came into my store(,) wearing a hat, which I told her to remove so I could see her hair and offer her a fair price for it.

I tried to write such a sentence. I would like to ask if the coma before 'wearing' is necessary or not?

Thank you.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would not use that comma. But I would put one after "remove".

 

[ademoglu]

You would not because that comma changes the meaning of the sentence, isn't it?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would not use it because it is incorrect.

 

[ademoglu]

I just wanted to learn why it is incorrect.

 

[MikeNewYork]

It just doesn't make any sense. If I say "I saw John walking his dog", what would a comma after John be for?

 

[ademoglu]

Not it would not. However, I think the sentence ''He swam to the side, using the breast stroke'' needs a comma before 'using' and I wonder that what the difference between the original sentence and this one.

I am asking because I really feel confused about it.

 

[bhaisahab]

Not it would not. However, I think the sentence ''He swam to the side, using the breast stroke'' needs a comma before 'using' and I wonder that what the difference between the original sentence and this one.

I am asking because I really feel confused about it.

It doesn't need a comma.

 

[SoothingDave]

You're going to buy her hair?

 

[ademoglu]

You're going to buy her hair?

Yes.

 

[Matthew Wai]

If I say "I saw John walking his dog", what would a comma after John be for?

It is different from the OP's sentence, because John was walking his dog but the OP's store was not wearing a hat. Am I wrong?
Not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

No, that doesn't have a bearing on the comma. Neither structure needs a comma; neither should have one.
The burden of explanation is on the person who wants to put a comma there.
Anyway, if there's an ambiguity in the hat sentence, then "I saw John walking his dog" could mean "While I was walking his dog, I saw John". A comma would not disambiguate that either. But in reality, those sentences are unlikely to be misinterpreted.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't consider the "walking the dog" sentence to be ambiguous at all. If the author meant your alternative explanation, the sentence was badly written.

 

[Raymott]

Exactly.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'The young woman came into my store wearing a hat.'
'The young woman wearing a hat came into my store.'
No comma should be used before 'wearing' because it is a present participle modifying a noun.
Is it right or wrong?
Not a teacher.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would not use a comma in either case. It is not necessary.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Should the comma be omitted from the sentence below?

In English-Chinese dictionaries, the two verbs translate the same,
causing confusion.

 

[+Technist Warp-]

***Not a teacher***

Actually, the commas in the OP's context are used to surround something additional and descriptive. The words in between can be omitted. I agree with Mike in the first reply. If you omit 'wearing a hat', the sentence wouldn't make sense because there is 'which I told her to remove' in the context. The two commas should be placed before 'which' and after 'remove'. But then, it wouldn't make sense, right? Because you follow it up with seeing the hair and offering the price so the commas aren't necessarily necessary. Just saying.

Answer is: no, the comma before 'wearing' isn't necessary.

You could break it up.

"And a woman came into my store, wearing a hat which I told her to remove. I wanted her to remove it so that I could see her hair and offer a fair price for it."

In the first sentence, I used only one comma because the other comma is replaced with the full stop to end the sentence. The comma is just to separate the main sentence with a description.

'I, a boy, am going to post this post'. I just added information that is unnecessary and it could be omitted. 'I am going to post this post' practically has the same meaning.

What you would do with her hair, I don't know! Wigs?

@Matthew (I like your pic)
"In English-Chinese dictionaries, the two verbs translate the same, causing confusion."

The first comma used is because you started with a preposition. The second comma is to separate the main sentence from a description. The sentence works fine by "In English-Chinese dictionaries, the two verbs translate the same."

The sentence "In English-Chinese dictionaries, the two verbs translate the same causing confusion." Commas are actually used to separate parts of a sentence and to give the sentence a pause to make it understandable. If you said "In English-Chinese dictionaries the two verbs translate the same causing confusion", would it make sense without commas added and by talking at a steady monotone? Not really... So Matthew... the comma is best to stay where it is, unless you want to omit it along with 'causing confusion'.

***Not a teacher***

 

[Raymott]

"And a woman came into my store, wearing a hat which I told her to remove.

I'd suggest that this should be: "And a woman came into my store wearing a hat, which I told her to remove."

The reason is that "which I told her to remove" is a non-defining clause. There is no need for any further commas.
Your sentence leaves open the possibility that the store owner had asked her previously to remove the hat, and that you are using a defining clause. "Which hat was she wearing? The hat I told her to remove." I don't think that's your intention.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I am not a teacher.

"In English-Chinese dictionaries, the two verbs translate the same, causing confusion."

A comma is needed before 'causing confusion' because it means 'thus causing confusion'. Am I right or wrong?

"which I told her to remove" is a non-defining clause.

Is the clause below defining?
'And a woman came into my store wearing the hat which I sold her previously.'

@Matthew (I like your pic)

Such abbreviations as 'pic' are unacceptable on this forum.