alexxkay: (Default)
Alexx Kay ([personal profile] alexxkay) wrote2006-08-09 02:52 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

two-million dollar comma

For all the language wonks on my Friends list, another object lesson about the importance of punctuation:

Different interpretations of a comma end up costing a contractor 2.13 million dollars.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] freerange-snark.livejournal.com 2006-08-09 09:01 pm (UTC)(link)
What I can't figure out is how the sentence would be punctuated differently to convey the meaning the losing party thought was intended. But then, I'm dangerously sleep-depped...

[identity profile] cvirtue.livejournal.com 2006-08-09 09:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Possibly break it up into separate sentences.

[identity profile] freerange-snark.livejournal.com 2006-08-10 02:05 am (UTC)(link)
Now that I finally understand that what they meant was that the comma shouldn't be there at all (see my comment below), I can safely say that breaking it up into separate sentences is a better solution still. Thanks for the help -- not being able to figure that out was making me battier than usual.
ext_104661: (Default)

[identity profile] alexx-kay.livejournal.com 2006-08-09 11:03 pm (UTC)(link)
According to the article, not including the second comma would have done the trick. Separate sentences might have been clearer still.

[identity profile] freerange-snark.livejournal.com 2006-08-10 02:02 am (UTC)(link)
Oooooooooooh, now I get it. Somehow it was just escaping me before. Yes, without the comma it does mean that any five-year term after the initial, not-get-out-of-able one, could be terminated with a year's notice. With the comma, anyone can terminate the contract at any time, so long as they warn the other party a year in advance.

Thankee, thankee. I couldn't figure out where the comma should go instead, but it just shouldn't be there at all. That was driving me bananas.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only