While applying commas which points are supposed to be
kept in mind?
OR
Should I STFW?

"mixing" is a "continuous process". I.e. "to show mixing" == "to show how colors and patterns are being continuously mixed (by somebody/something)". Which probably isn't what you wanted. In other words, if somebody takes a piece of a carpet ("pattern"), drops it into barrel of paint ("colors"), start mixing the paint along with "pattern" AND you take the picture while he's doing it, that'll be "picture displaying mixing of pattern and colors".

Possible things you wanted to say:

1. "combination of colors and patterns". For that I'd use "show mix of colors and patterns", "show combination of color and patterns".
2. To "show application of technique" - "you wanted to show how to mix colors and patterns",
3. "apply technique" - "your wanted/tried to mix colors and patterns".

It will be easier to split sentence in two: "In your picture you wanted to mix/combine colors and patterns. You don't need to use 'perpendicular angles' and 'perfection in placement' for that."

If you really want to use a lot of commas, then I guess you'll need to get an english grammar/syntax textbook. English phrases that heavily use commas are uncommon on the internet. In my native language heavy use of punctuation is quite common (more or less), and it resembles english rules. Since I have no idea about punctuation in your language, I won't be able to explain that to you.

Hello Anisha

Your interest in mastering English has brought you to the point where you need to know (dismaying as it may be) that there are no rules, only conventions (and the conventions vary from place to place). English does not have an authoritative body, prescribing how it must be used. It is a living language, constantly being re-defined by its users. Frustrating as that may be for students of the language, it does confer great adaptability for a changing world and a wide range of users.

The most complete answer to your question -- and other questions that you are likely to ask soon -- is Eats, Shoots & Leaves. There may be torrents of both the original book's text and the radio presentation.

Greetings Charles, :)

The book looks indeed helpful, and short too (thankfully). Well,
AFAIK here in India they have standardized British English.

I realize now, all this while I have been making a fool of myself
with haphazard placements of commas! :mad:
Well at least, my interest in mastering <anything> has made me a
perfectionist and therefore a procrastinator! :rolleyes: ;p


-----------

Commas are a complicated subject, because they are used in a lot of different contexts, and so there are a lot of rules governing their use. But to focus on the one in question here, I'd say it's worth going over a couple of select guidelines.

1) Commas are used to separate independent clauses linked by a conjunction. To put that in layman's terms, any clause that could stand on its own as a full sentence is an independent clause. And a conjunction is a word or phrase that links two clauses... examples: and, or, but, because, not only, in spite of, etc.

So, taking my first sentence in this thread apart, we have three independent clauses, because they could all be rewritten as complete sentences:

And the conjunctions used are: "because," "and so."

The basic rule of thumb here is, always remember to use a comma before the common conjunctions.

2) Commas are also used to separate introductory words/phrases/clauses that come before a main clause.

My second sentence is an example of this sort of sentence. The first phrase cannot stand alone as a full sentence. "To focus on the one in question here"... what? There's no action. That makes it a dependent clause, because it depends on the action in the second clause. It introduces the main clause, which could stand alone as its own sentence.

There's a lot more to it than that, so here's a good source: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/

And FYI, your style of sprinkling in commas as pauses is not unusual in written English, though it is archaic. I find that style commonly used whenever I read 18th century literature, like Thomas Paine. As catkin suggested, there is a certain element of style to it, and you're free to make choices and be creative to a degree... but the standards have been hardened quite a bit since Paine's time.

Anisha, you mentioned British English. In standard British English you tend to use -ise, not -ize, as in: realise, standardised, etc.

Actually, Oxford University Press has always used -ize!
The advantage of using -ise is that you don't have to remember the exceptions. For example, "advertize" and "surprize" are considered wrong on both sides of the Atlantic.

To return to our commas, a good guide is to read the sentence out loud. Does it need a pause? If so, insert a comma.

Identical twins who share tight emotional bonds may live longer.
Identical twins, who are always of the same sex, arise in a different way.

However much you argue, you will not convince me.

a small edible fish
a long, thin stick

the bishops of Winchester, Bristol, and Bath and Wells [the bishop of B & W is one person]

Yes, I know. For some reason they insist on this spelling.

According to http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ise1.htm

To be honest, I don't remember when I last saw -ize in any publication printed in the UK. Mind you, it's not every day that I read academic papers.

IMHO, it's time for OUP to find a balance between being prescriptive and descriptive

edit: hmm, I must admit that having researched the reasons why they insist on -ize, I'm inclined to change my mind.

Would you have been surprized if you had
I would like to see a summary of the reasons if you are minded to share them here.

Basically I like the idea of simplifying the pronunciation patterns. It'd be nice if the spelling of the suffixes (-ise, -ize) would correspond to their pronunciation (the sound /z/)

Besides, if I understand it correctly, the suffix(es) come(s) from the Latin -izare, and it's only later when English was under the influence of French that the suffix -ise was adopted (it comes from the French -iser.) The French suffix, in turn, has its origins again in the Latin -izare.
From the etymological point of view, it'd make more sense to stick to the original spelling with -z and ignore the French influence.

On the other hand, I see David's point that using the -ise form brings more consistency in terms of spelling.

The most important thing to know about English is that it is not consistent. Words were adopted into the language from almost every source and tongue. "Accepted" usage varies sometimes-considerably among users.

Noah Webster and his dictionary was a colourful chap, and his work colored the language as he tried to standardise and anthologize it. He thought that there should be one spelling for every worde when you can take my word for it that different groups of people who have spoken English all their borne days would hasten to be born to tell you that half the words in this sentence are mispelled or misspelled.

I believe it can be said of most natural languages. Variations of all sorts will inevitably take place reflecting the tendencies present in a particular period of time or region. This is how natural languages work.

Deleted

How do you say, the verb of closing :
"Sbdy that closes a door swiftly, with possible anger"

What is the hard middle part of a mango?

thank you

1. I think you mean to slam the door.
2. kernel