Which is better?

I was unhappy to find out that in 1982 my best friend started smoking cigarettes.

I was unhappy to find out that in 1982, my best friend started smoking cigarettes.

I was unhappy to find out that, in 1982, my best friend started smoking cigarettes.

The actual sentence I am wondering about is a phrase from LL#2's college application essay so I don't want to post the actual sentence for fear of getting him flagged by plagiarism checkers. But these sentences are very similar in structure and my question is whether the year needs to be separated by a comma on either one or both sides. I don't think it needs a comma at all but the English teachers at his school seem a bit comma-happy and have taught them to put commas in all kinds of places where I don't think they really need to be. Could just be newfangled english rules, I guess?

What say you, WTFers?

this:

quote:

I was unhappy to find out that, in 1982, my best friend started smoking cigarettes.

Or this:

I was unhappy to find out that my best friend started smoking cigarettes in 1982.

I was going to suggest SK's rewrite.

The actual sentence is more complex and doesn't really work with the rewrite unfortunately. Let me have him play around to see what he can do.

So you definitely think 2 commas? That seems like a bit much to me.

ETA: Nevermind - he changed the year clause to once and it works. "I was unhappy to find out that my best friend once started smoking cigarettes."

(OK that sounds stupid but it makes much more sense in the real sentence, LOL!)

It's in the gray area for me. First, it's a nonessential clause so it needs commas technically speaking. It's nonessential because you could remove the entire "in 1982" and the sentence would still make sense.

But the gray part comes in when you apply the other rule I've been taught: does it make sense without the commas? (I think it does).

I know you don't want to write the real sentence, but when a sentence becomes really complex I would consider options to rewrite, just on principle. There's no need to sound like Hemingway, but a complicated sentence can often be improved by rewriting it or breaking it into two sentences.

Of the three options, only number 1.

And yes, the younger generation is comma-happy.

quote:

when a sentence becomes really complex I would consider options to rewrite, just on principle.

This. When editing my own writing, I tend to keep an eye out for longer sentences. When I find them, I arbitrarily check to see if it's more than 40 words long. If it is, I often split it in two or else just take a very critical eye to make sure it's readable.

As for sentence in your original question Lisa, yes, as written, it would be better with two commas than only one.

I started smoking cigarettes in 1982.

I am comma-happy and I'm not young.

I would say zero or both. Both makes it slightly clearer that the BF started smoking in 1982, not that I found out in 1982. The "that" should do it, but the commas help.

My usual guideline is that if the intervening addition is five words or more, use commas. If not, don't, unless you really feel like it.

quote:

Originally posted by ShiroKuro:
When I find them, I arbitrarily check to see if it's more than 40 words long.

I start breaking things up at 20 words. That was the guideline from the European Aircraft Manufacturers Association for writing technical material in English for non-English readers.

I've been noticing a lot of online news has been suffering run-on sentences. They put the who, what, where, and when all in one sentence. I think news editing is becoming passe.

What Shiro Kuro said in post no. 2.

In addition, the word “that” is unnecessary in the sentence. Therefore, the sentence could also be rewritten as:
“I was unhappy to find out my best friend started smoking cigarettes in 1982.”

For non-professional writers, “that” can be an overused word. Professional writers such as journalists really watch out for unnecessary “that” words and delete them if they can.

quote:

Originally posted by Qaanaaq-Liaaq:
What Shiro Kuro said in post no. 2.

In addition, the word “that” is unnecessary in the sentence. Therefore, the sentence could also be rewritten as:
“I was unhappy to find out my best friend started smoking cigarettes in 1982.”

For non-professional writers, “that” can be an overused word. Professional writers such as journalists really watch out for unnecessary “that” words and delete them if they can.

I use "that" at every opportunity. I find that it is a necessary feature of some European languages and maybe others for a particle to separate two phrases. (Again, I've spent the last 32 years writing for non-English speakers, so I'm stuck there.)

"I see you are walking down the street." The person with shaky English is going word-by-word, gets as far as "I see you", then has to backtrack because "walking" is an important part of what I see.

"I see that you are walking down the street." That indicates that everything that follows is a unit.

And that's that.

I was reading Moby-Dick a couple of summers ago.

It made my brain more comfortable with longer sentences.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by Qaanaaq-Liaaq:
What Shiro Kuro said in post no. 2.

In addition, the word “that” is unnecessary in the sentence. Therefore, the sentence could also be rewritten as:
“I was unhappy to find out my best friend started smoking cigarettes in 1982.”

For non-professional writers, “that” can be an overused word. Professional writers such as journalists really watch out for unnecessary “that” words and delete them if they can.

I use "that" at every opportunity. I find that it is a necessary feature of some European languages and maybe others for a particle to separate two phrases. (Again, I've spent the last 32 years writing for non-English speakers, so I'm stuck there.)

"I see you are walking down the street." The person with shaky English is going word-by-word, gets as far as "I see you", then has to backtrack because "walking" is an important part of what I see.

"I see that you are walking down the street." That indicates that everything that follows is a unit.

And that's that.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by RealPlayer:
I was reading Moby-Dick a couple of summers ago.

It made my brain more comfortable with longer sentences.

I think longer sentences in fiction can be good, fun even, but academic (and also instructional) writing should strive for clarity, conciseness, and readability. I don't have a lot of patience for academic prose that's unnecessarily dense....