1111: Book Additions And Corrections - 7: Subjects Having Commas

(Added September 5, 2024)

I do not know why I said that other exception reverses construction direction. Instead, what the relative pronouns mentioned do is like providing a copy to substitute the content of the preceding segment and therefore the connection of the content following it within the segment of the relative pronoun can be internal. Therefore that segment would stay in its place and so would the comma separating it from the verb if that segment is the closet to the verb.

-----

I just changed the main title of this post. 

(Added September 3, 2024)

 I confused things below by explaining them through the construction in the direction of reading rather than the construction in the direction of building. In other words, I should have started from the first comma separated segment and worked my way to the one closest to the verb while along the way take account of the kind of the connecting words if they indicate separation (as in the first exception below) or reverse direction (as in the second exception below). 

When the subject on its own has one or more commas then it must also have a comma separating it from the verb or otherwise just the closest segment to the verb would be the subject. The question is if it also should be handled from its mere thought or not.

(Starting Post)

 Despite how often it has occurred to me when dealing with subjects that have one or more commas other than the comma separating them  from the verb that there is no existence according to just the mere thought there (I used to call that "handling the subject from its mere thought" but I now intend to adjust that understanding), I couldn't understand why until yesterday (technically today). As mentioned at the start of chapter four, outside the subject-verb-object relation, comma separated parts have dependency in existence on each other that goes in the opposite direction to reading. So here the existence of another comma in the subject implies that the part next to the comma preceding the verb does not exist before completing the construction of all parts of the subject, and doing that would dissolve all commas including the one separating from the verb.

So based on this I have erred below and erred similarly in my book.  

However, there is no dependency in existence among comma separated parts intended to survive separately as in with connecting through the "or" or "and" (a list is an example of that). 

Another exception I am taking from the  writ is about the use of the relative pronouns "who" , "whom", "which", "what", "that" because they reverse the direction of the construction.